Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CUMBRIA BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL
(By Order)

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS)
(No. 2) BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

>FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Long Distance Coaches (Alcoholic Drinks)

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the licensing laws to permit alcoholic drinks to be served on long distance motor coaches.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): We have no plans to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as a result of the Transport Act 1980, the travelling public are benefiting from cheaper fares and a better service from free enterprise coach operators? Does he further accept that these coach operators are being discriminated against by not being able to provide a bar service in the way that British Rail does? Will he now give further thought to introducing legislation to remedy that situation?

Mr. Raison: I certainly accept the merits and advantages that have arisen from the Transport Act 1980. However, this point was considered by the Erroll committee on liquor licensing and it came to the

conclusion that it would not be wise to do what my hon. Friend asks. The problem, of course, is the risk that the sale of alcohol could contribute to rowdiness and accidents.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that it is not the business of the House to bring delight to brewery companies or football hooligans? Will he also make it clear to his hon. Friend that his point about road safety is extremely relevant?

Mr. Raison: Road safety is of great importance, and I am totally against football hooligans. I do not understand, however, why we should not cheer up he brewery industry.

Liverpool

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the improvement in relations between the police and the local communities in inner Liverpool.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): There is a dialogue between the police and the local community, whose support is essential if progress is to be maintained.

Mr. Parry: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Does he accept that the work done by local policing in the community can be undermined by police actions outside inner areas? A serious incident occurred recently in im1er Liverpool and it nearly started another riot. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the bridge building done by the community police can be destroyed by such actions?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The answer lies in the closest possible cooperation between the chief constable, chairman of the police authority and police authorities as a whole. I am pleased to note that that co-operation is improving greatly.

Mr. Alton: In view of the staggering 50 per cent. increase in burglaries in inner Liverpool and throughout Merseyside in January, does the Home Secretary agree that the time has come to reinstate the £500, 000 reduction in the Merseyside Police budget this year and to think again about the reopening of local neighbourhood police stations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that the burglaries are extremely serious. A great deal of work can be done by co-operation with the police, crime prevention measures and many other methods of assistance. The money given—first, through the Government grant and, secondly, through the rate support grant—to cater for police pay increases, and, indeed, the general importance that the Government attach to law and order, should cover all the council's demands.

Young Offenders

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of his policy towards the statement issued on 22 February by a conference of chief probation officers relating to the treatment of young offenders who may further overcrowd prisons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): We were glad to receive the chief probation officers' views on the Criminal Justice Bill. They will be taken into account as the Bill progresses.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the officers certainly have a legitimate fear that there may be a tendency, under the new measures and proposals, to impose prison sentences, thereby adding to the prison population instead of decreasing it? If so, the probation officers' duties will seem to be declining.

Mr. Mayhew: The chief probation officers warned against what they called "over use" of very short detention centre orders. We agree that, by definition, that would be wrong. However, I am sure that the courts will be alert to these matters.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister of State bear in mind that chief probation officers are extremely concerned to ensure that any extension of non-custodial measures for young offenders is adequately financed? What extra financial provision will be available for the probation and after-care service following the enactment of the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has already announced that provision for the equivalent of a further 150 probation officers will be made available.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister of State recall that the fear expressed by the conference of chief probation officers—a fear shared by many other individuals and organisations—is that the new power given to the courts to impose shorter detention centre sentences will lead to an increase in the number of young boys going to those centres? If the Government do not want that to happen, will the hon. and learned Gentleman look favourably at amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which are designed to impose stricter criteria before a custodial sentence is passed?

Mr. Mayhew: I have in mind what was said by the chairman of the conference, Mr. Gerald Bevis. He said that if these proposals were followed through and carefully implemented they could help society to cope more effectively with the problems presented by young offenders. I agree with him. I am sure that the courts will be alert to the need to do that.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the object of penal policy is to curb crime and protect the public, not simply to fit people into such accommodation as may be available?

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I am sure that she will agree that the Criminal Justice Bill, now in Committee, adequately meets that requirement.

Merseyside Constabulary

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Merseyside constabulary is recruited from ethnic minorities; and how this compares with the national average.

Mr. Raison: On 31 January 1982, eight Merseyside police officers—0·17 per cent. of the force—were members of the ethnic minorities. The number in England and Wales was 343—0·29 per cent. of the total police strength.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister of State accept that that is a pathetically small number of people from the ethnic minorities who are actually involved in policing our communities? What steps will he take to improve that position? Does he accept that, until the height restrictions are removed, many Asians who have applied to join and have been turned down will continue to be refused admission into our police forces?

Mr. Raison: We accept that the numbers are too low. A national group is examining the problem. We are conducting a recruiting campaign in both the ethnic and national press.
As regards height restrictions, it is possible for chief constables to lower the height limit, if that is desired, but as a general principle we do not believe that it is right to lower the standards of policing to meet the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not essential to have the highest possible standards of recruiting to the police force? Therefore, percentages for certain minorities are not of prime importance.

Mr. Raison: We should like the percentage of members of the ethnic minorities to be increased. We do not believe in quotas. However, I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We want the best possible policemen. Happily, the standard of recruits to the police force is improving.

Hijacks (Costs)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any additional support from Home Office funds is made available to police forces when they are involved in the extra expense of hijack situations at airports.

Mr. Whitelaw: The costs of police operations, including additional costs arising from exceptional commitments, are shared between central Government and local authorities, and qualify for 50 per cent. police grant in the usual way. I have no power to make any additional financial contribution.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people—in fact, almost everyone in the country—were extremely pleased about what the police did in the recent highjacking incident at Stansted? They did a first-class job. Since such incidents could take place at airports in other parts of the country, because they are an international hazard, should not the costs be borne by the Government instead of being shared between local authorities, particularly as there has been a considerable increase in local authority costs in this instance?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the work of the Essex police at Stansted. The response by the Government and the police to terrorist operations has, I hope, been sufficiently positive and determined to deter those who may think of carrying out such activities in future. I trust that the problem will not arise, because we have shown such a firm response. When it does arise, the costs are normally shared. If it became more frequent we should have to consider the matter. I am convinced, however, that a determined response will deter people from taking such action.

Mr. Newens: I pay tribute to the work of the Essex police on this occasion. Is there any truth in the report that,


as far as possible, highjacked aircraft are to be diverted to Stansted? Would it not, therefore, be right to make an additional move to assist the Essex county council if there are any further highjackings?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong of me, in answer to particular questions, to disclose any of the plans that we may have to deal with the problems that might arise. I certainly do not intend to do that.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is there not something seriously wrong in principle when a local authority has to bear a share of the costs when the choice of airport may have been made for national security reasons?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall not go into the matter, for security reasons. It is equally important to say to my hon. Friend, whose constituency was involved, that the Essex police performed their task in a successful and remarkable manner. We are all extremely grateful to them. I hope that the problem will not arise again, because of the success of that action.

Public Houses (Gaming Machines)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, pursuant to his study into the recommendations of the Royal Commission on gambling, in connection with the maximum prizes for gaming machines in public houses.

Mr. Raison: We have received representations from right hon. and hon. Members, from the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and from registered clubs.

Mr. Hunt: Why has the Government's response so far on this matter been so mean and negative? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that to increase the jackpot on gaming machines in public houses to a modest £10 will somehow turn London into a Las Vegas?

Mr. Raison: London would still be some way off Las Vegas in those circumstances. The Royal Commission recommended that maximum prizes in pubs should be the same as in amusement arcades. The basis of the policy has always been that there is some difference between places to which there is unrestricted access and places where it is possible to control access through membership.

Mr. Alexander: Is there not an argument for equating the prizes with those obtainable in licensed clubs? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that pubs had a particularly bad year in 1981 and that they will be hit hard by the tax on beer and spirits? Does he agree that, unless an element of equality is brought in, many public houses, which could remain open if this reform came in, will close?

Mr. Raison: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, which has been stressed by the licensed victuallers. We take the view that there is a difference in the means of control available as between clubs and pubs. However, we are considering the whole matter in the context of whether there is to be future gambling legislation.

Departmental Computing Services

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the computing services for which his Department is responsible; and for what purposes they are used.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the computing services for which his Department is responsible; and for what purposes they are used.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Estimates for this financial year provide £7·8 million for the police national computer and some £6 million, excluding staff costs and overheads, for other computer systems for which the Home Office is directly responsible. These include staff records, pay and accounts, the production of statistics, and support for the work of the immigration and nationality and prison departments.

Mr. Price: What about the MI5 £20 million computer in Mount Street, Mayfair, which, although technically operated by the MOD, is actually under the control of the Secretary of State? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a legitimate subject for scrutiny in Parliament if one computer under the control of the Government has access to every other computer, including computers in the DHSS and the Inland Revenue, and thus to every individual citizen? Will the new White Paper on data protection say anything about the MI5 computer, about which there has been so much publicity? The Home Secretary should say something.

Mr. Whitelaw: We hope to publish a White Paper on data protection shortly. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. I must make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, that it is not the Government's practice to comment on questions about the operations of the security services.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as 1984 looms nearer the Government, who were elected on a ticket of freedom for all, are spending £20 million on a computer in Mayfair to snoop on millions of innocent people, when at the same time they tell us constantly that they cannot find the same slick computing expertise to churn out information to enable old-age pensions to be paid in less than six months? Why do the Government not turn their attention to that instead of concentrating on security matters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I refuse to comment on the hon. Gentleman's usually extravagant remarks. I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even allowing for proper data protection safeguards, the file matching and cross-referencing facilities of mainframe computers can be invaluable in the investigation of major crimes and would, for example, have greatly assisted the police in the Yorkshire ripper case?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is certainly true of all criminal work. I hope that those hon. Members who constantly ask questions about crime will be the first to say that they want to deal with crime and that they will support the police in doing so.

Mr. Cryer: Surely it is a matter of genuine public concern that the non-accountable Department that is embarking on massive computerisation already has access to other Government Department's records. Is this not a step in the direction of a police State? Is the right hon. Gentleman not participating in it by giving a carefully


worded answer that is designed to block questions for at least three months in the House and, therefore, to evade democratic accountability?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have not found it possible, as Home Secretary, to evade democratic accountability, especially in recent days. I do not accept some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have nothing to add to my earlier reply.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members feel that the Government's White Paper on computer protection is long overdue for commerce, industry and individuals? Does he appreciate that many people throughout the country feel that their privacy is under threat because of the lack of data protection in the United Kingdom compared with the protection that exists in other European countries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend when the White Paper on data protection is published, which will be very shortly.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage the number of crimes of violence made known to the police has altered over the past 10 years.

Mr. Mayhew: About 100, 000 offences of violence against the person were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1981, which was just over twice as many as in 1971.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the increasing rise in crimes of violence, despite the welcome increase in police numbers, and the suffering of victims, are the Government willing to reconsider with an open mind the introduction of stronger deterrents as a means of curbing crime—even for a trial period—including the introduction of capital punishment, corporal punishment and mandatory sentences?

Mr. Mayhew: There is to be a debate on the introduction of corporal punishment in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. I am looking forward to that debate with keen anticipation. One reads that the House may have a similar opportunity in respect of capital punishment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister agree that neither capital nor corporal punishment has ever been an effective deterrent? Does he accept that the real cause of the increase in serious crime is the Government's economic policy and the failure of the Metropolitan Police, for example, to catch criminals? Is he aware that they cleared up fewer crimes last year than in 1972 or in any year when the Labour Government were in office? Surely that raises serious questions about the policy and practices of the Metropolitan Police, their inability to obtain the confidence of the public and, therefore, the information on which they rely for catching and convicting criminals?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not want to anticipate my powerful speech on corporal punishment in Committee. However, I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman yet again—I have been doing so for two months in Committee—on what he says about the Metropolitan Police, who face enormously complex, often dangerous, and difficult tasks. I believe that they deserve the support of the House and the community, not endless criticism.

Police Strength

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield of 2 March, Official Report,  column 82,  he is satisfied that the projected increase in police strength in England and Wales is sufficient to deal with the recent increase in crimes of all categories, and particularly with regard to street crimes and disturbances in the inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the police forces in England; and how this figure compares with three years before.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. At the end of January the total strength of the police service in England and Wales was 119, 508. This is an increase of 9, 562 compared with January 1979. This gain, with the further increase in police strength already provided for in the next 12 months, gives chief officers of police more officers than ever before to carry out the many tasks that we expect from our police service.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that violent crime against the person is now as important an issue in people's minds as unemployment? Does he agree that the increase in violent crime, including the setting up of vigilante groups within our inner city areas, is extremely serious? Will he say what further example the House can give to ensure that the courts are able to mete out sentences to fit the serious crimes that are being committed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I support him in his anxiety about the increase in crime, especially burglaries and street crimes, which are serious and which must be tackled by the House, the police service, the Government and the whole community. Only by a concerted effort shall we succeed against these crimes. For the benefit of those who seem to think that there is something wrong in having a strong police service, I should add that the first priority is to have a strong police service. When the service is strong, it is necessary to make it effective. That is important, and the Government have directed a great deal of effort towards that end. I do not accept that vigilantes have a place in our society. Those who want to help can join the special constabulary. There are many important tasks that they can carry out. The House has the right to provide the power for judges and magistrates to impose appropriate sentences.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the increase in police strength of 9, 000, which I understand includes an increase of over 3, 000 in the Metropolitan Police force. May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that is resulting, and will continue to result, in more policemen patrolling our city streets? Does he agree that that is the best way to get the co-operation and confidence of the public, which is an essential element in tackling the rising crime rate?

Mr. Whitelaw: First, it is the Government's job, which they have fully carried out, to provide the planned additions for the recruitment of police officers in the numbers and of the quality that are needed. Secondly, it is for the police to be thoroughly effective in carrying out their task by using all the equipment that the Government


provide. I trust that in carrying out their task they will receive the full help, advice and moral support of the entire community.

Mr. Hattersley: Despite the Home Secretary's very real efforts, the Government have been unable to fulfil their election promise to reduce the level of crime. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the best way of reducing the crime rate is not by wild talk about more violent punishment but by getting the police out on the streets among the people?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree entirely that that is the task. I understand the anxieties that are expressed and I fully appreciate the problems. It can be said that the issue is one for the community as a whole. There are many problems—parental discipline, discipline in schools and many other aspects—which contribute to the rising crime rate. The police cannot do it all on their own.

Sir Paul Bryan: As well as the Government's success in recruiting and increasing the police force, which is important, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's continued support of the police has been a major factor in sustaining their morale?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope it can be said that this support will be forthcoming from all sections of our community. Some people are more ready to criticise than to support the police in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Home Secretary find time to read early-day motion 351? Does he agree that, although we are spending more on police numbers, electronic aids, two-way radios, cars, helicopters, computers and God knows what else, we have more crime now than we have ever had in our history? Will the Home Secretary examine why that should be so?

Mr. Whitelaw: The police and the community as a whole need to examine these facts. There are many reasons for them, but no excuses.

Stansted Airport (Incident)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personnel under his command took part in the operation at Stansted airport on 27–28 February.

Mr. Whitelaw: Five officials from my Department took part in the operation at Stansted airport.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Was not the quality of the overall command of this successful operation very important? Does my right hon. Friend understand that some of those behind him, I suspect a number, are becoming incresingly resentful—particularly those of us who have served under him, sometimes in difficult situations—at suggestions that in the conduct of this operation, or in the general fight against crime, he is other than a man of great firmness and determination?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should say to those who are quite entitled to criticise me that I have always believed that in public life policies are more important than personalities.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his part in this successful operation. Does he

agree that it was a national operation at the expense of a county that has fared badly in terms of rate support? Would Her Majesty's Government give some more consideration to the possibility of helping local authorities who are fortuitously subjected to the cost?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I gave answers earlier to the effect that I hoped that, by our resolute response to these incidents, we should not have more. If we do, I shall consider what my hon. Friend said.

Representation of the People Regulations 1974

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to amend regulation 22(1) of the Representation of the people Regulations 1974.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Dr. Marshall: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that one consequence of this regulation, and I am glad to hear that it is not to be amended, is that in any constituency where the Liberal and Social Democratic parties agree to support a common parliamentary candidate only the party of that candidate is entitled to receive free copies of the electoral register, while the other party loses all entitlement to free registers for any purpose whatsoever?

Mr. Mayhew: As I understand it, the relevant article of the regulation is geared to candidates and not to parties. The Liberals and the SDP will have to sort it out themselves. They may be able to manage that.

Violent Crime

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce new measures to combat the rising level of violent crime.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Government have already increased the strength of the police service to a record level. The full benefit of this will be felt as new officers are trained and become fully effective. But police effectiveness also depends upon the active support and cooperation of the local communities. I am taking steps to encourage and develop this.

Mr. Marlow: At a time when one of our citizens falls victim to a violent crime every five minutes of the day and night, the public are massively reassured that my right hon. Friend is spearheading the campaign against these appalling crimes. Does he agree that, instinctively, people up and down the country believe that we should be considering new and further measures to abate this appalling increase in crime? Will he reassure the public that he will bring these measures forward if he feels they are necessary, whatever institutions outside the country may consider?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend has said about the great concern of the country, and I understand that. At the same time, it is fair to point out what the Government are doing, with the wide range of penalties available to the judges and magistrates in the Criminal Justice Bill, and what we are doing about prison building and maintenance to ensure that all those whom the judges


and magistrates decide to imprison should have places there. That is crucial to the criminal justice system. There are a wide range of penalties available. The Criminal Justice Bill is widely supported in the party as carrying out our manifesto commitment, is another step in the right direction, and is therefore the right thing for us to do.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the Home Secretary accept that all of us are opposed to the rise in crime and that all of us seek to diminish it by effective policing? The dispute is about what is the nature of effective policing. Where community policing has been tried, as it has in Handsworth, it has cut the crime rate on the streets. That is why so many of us are supporting community policing, not because it is soft but because it is effective.

Mr. Whitelaw: I find that the constant remarks about community policing are becoming something that seems to be bedevilling our policing system. What we want to see is effective policing, which means harnessing the support, encouragement and help of the local community from which any police service springs.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While no one has done more than my right hon. Friend to improve the numbers and the morale of the police service, may I ask what he is doing further to help in respect of the greater powers recommended by the Royal Commission, the longer training recommended by Lord Scarman and the greater standardisation of equipment, particularly radio equipment, which in too many cases is incompatible between one force and another?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. As for the other measures, I hope to be able to bring forward proposals that will implement some part of the plans of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure dealing with police powers. I note his other points. We are making progress on training in all forces and encouraging the provision of the right equipment.

Mr. Snape: Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the deployment and tactics of police forces, particularly in inner cities? Does he agree that if police authorities had the right to discuss such matters with chief constables in places such as Greater Manchester, that in turn would lead to a more visible police force on the street, which would be a far greater deterrent to crime than the unhealthy blood lust shown by some of his more eccentric supporters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly believe in the police having the help and advice of the community they serve, through discussions with their police authorities. That is part of the business of the Police Act 1964. If that is to be successful that is what must be done, and I am encouraging it in all police forces.

Prison Officers (Accommodation)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the standards of accommodation available for prison officers and their families.

Mr. Raison: Yes, Sir, in general, but improvements still need to be made. Revised standards for prison department married quarters were agreed in 1972 and applied to all quarters purchased or built after that date.
There is a continuing programme of improvements to houses and flats that fall below these standards, and that are required for long-term retention.

Mr. Atkins: Bearing in mind the fulfilment of an election pledge to build and renovate mote prisons, which is something that should be welcome in all parts of the House, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to remove the artificial and administrative obstructions that prevent prison officers from becoming home owners?

Mr. Raison: I assure my hon. Friend that staff are given considerable freedom of choice as to whether they provide their own private accommodation, draw housing allowance or occupy a rent-free official quarter. This is as a result of a policy that the Government introduced in August 1979.

Mr. Flannery: When the Minister is thinking about accomodation for prison officers and their families, which all hon. Members want to see improved, will he also consider the appalling accommodation that exists for prisoners? Does he agree that a shortage of accommodation for prisoners breeds crime and that an improvement here is the first demand that should be made upon him?

Mr. Raison: As the House well knows, the Government are bringing in a substantial new prison building programme. This is the first time that this has happened for many decades.

National Police Computer

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities currently exist for exchanges of information between the national police computer and other computerised information storage and retrieval systems; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: The police national computer receives from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre particulars of vehicles and their keepers and of people disqualified from driving. It notifies the centre, in a similar manner, of vehicles reported to have been stolen.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Home Secretary aware that the House has not yet heard a comprehensive statement of what is stored in the computerised files of the national police computer? Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the need for the public to have access to the storage systems, does he agree that some kind of inspection should be made on behalf of the public to verify that this is the only information being stored?

Mr. Whitelaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is. I shall consider what he says.

Mr. Dickens: Will the Home Secretary explain how petrol stations are able to gain details of people's driving records through information left on slips when credit card sales are made? I know that this has happened.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Home Secretary today seems to have many responsibilities. I doubt whether the matter to which my hon. Friend's question relates falls within them.

Armley Prison

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time scale for the proposed extension to Her Majesty's prison Armley; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: We hope to purchase land from the Leeds city council in 1982–83. Progress after that is dependent upon negotiations for a smaller parcel of land in private ownership, and then upon the granting of the necessary planning clearances for the construction of an extension to be built on the newly acquired land.

Mr. Dean: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he undertake to look into the possibility of speeding up the programme, bearing in mind the appalling conditions that at present exist in Armley prison? Is he aware that juveniles and young people have, on occasions, to be held in custody at the prison until they are placed in other accommodation? Will he undertake to publish and make available to interested people in the area the report of the commission that investigated conditions in prisons, which began, I think, as the Pearce Commission, although Pearce has since died? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it available as soon as possible?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's description of the quality of conditions in Leeds prison. The document to which he refers will be published. I shall arrange for the hon. Gentleman to be notified as soon as a Government decision about the purchase of land has been made and I shall keep him informed of progress at intervals thereafter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the time scale between a decision to build a new prison or provide a major extension and the completion of the work is very long? Is he aware that some action should be taken to shorten the period, as this would help the Government's policy?

Mr. Mayhew: I accept completely what my hon. Friend says about the time scale. It derives, as my hon. Friend will know, to a great extent, from planning decisions and procedures, which nowadays are very jealously observed and insisted upon.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the police have adequate powers to deal with crimes of violence.

Mr. Whitelaw: I still have under active consideration the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, which recommends a number of changes in the powers of the police to deal with all forms of crime.

Mr. Durant: I accept that my right hon. Friend has done much to improve the morale and the numbers of the police. Will he encourage chief constables not to hesitate to use large numbers of police when this becomes necessary?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is an operational matter for chief constables. They know very well that they have my fullest support in operations that they believe to be right to deal effectively with crime.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does not the Home Secretary believe, in relation to crimes of violence, that it is

necessary to get the statistics right? Does he think it is fair that the Metropolitan Police should insist on using ethnic statistics for muggings but should refuse point blank to collect that information on anything else, particularly when people whom they stop and search in the streets are later acquitted or the charges are not proceeded with?

Mr. Whitelaw: There were a great many rumours and a great many allegations before the statistics were published. I believe that the truth is far better than rumour or allegation. It was right for the Metropolitan Police to publish the truth in their statistics. The truth helps to make leaders of any community realise that they should help and assist the police in isolating the small minority of criminals in their midst who cause all the trouble.

Mr. John Page: In view of the disgraceful scenes of hooliganism and violence at Wembley last weekend, and also at other football matches, will the Home Secretary consider discussing with police authorities the searching of crowds going to the grounds, on the lines of the successful example instituted in Scotland last year?

Mr. Whitelaw: The police obviously have a duty to deal with these problems as best they can. These incidents are serious. I am very worried about football hooliganism, as is my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I shall certainly have discussions to see whether we can improve our procedures.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to conclude and allow one extra minute for Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Hattersley: I revert to the statistics on which the Home Secretary was questioned. Was the right hon. Gentleman, as the police authority for London, consulted before the statistics were published? Or does he regard this as an operational matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I knew that the statistics were to be published. I agreed that they should be published, for the reason that I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

The. Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Afghanistan support committee. This evening I shall attend a State banquet given by His Majesty the Sultan of Oman.

Mr. Powell: Will the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, reflect on the compassion shown to her by thousands of people when her son was feared lost in the desert? Will she now respond by showing similar compassion to the millions of sons and daughters who are out of work and lost in the jungle of her economic policy? Will she respond? Will she stop these crocodile tears and the hypocrisy of pretending to care for the unemployed while pushing another 300, 000 people out of work? [Interruption.] Will she say to her son Mark—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We try to deal with ourselves in this place and leave our families out of it.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. He is taking up time. He cannot put a whole string of questions.

The Prime Minister: I am not certain what the question was. I think that the hon. Gentleman was asking that there should be more work for those who are seeking work. It requires a good deal more than sympathy to provide the requisite jobs. It requires people who have some idea, not only of how to speak about it, but of how to set up a business that will produce things that people will buy. We could do with far more of those people. We do not find enough of them among Opposition Members.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the threat made to the Ulster people by the new Eire Prime Minister—whose words will encourage the IRA to commit further atrocities, such as the vile slaughter of an 11-year-old schoolboy this week—will the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Haughey that. Northern Ireland is, and will remain, an integral part of the United Kingdom, that there will be no more secret talks at any level and that there will be no parliamentary tier? Will the Prime Minister take tougher measures against the Provisional IRA, which receives considerable sums of money from the United States, where Noraid was yesterday organising a parade for St. Patrick's Day to "get the Brits out"? Yet St. Patrick—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to be going on with.

The Prime Minister: First, Northern Ireland is, of course, part of the United Kingdom and the guarantee remains absolutely clear. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That can be changed only through this House, and not by any other means whatsoever.
Secondly, so far as I am concerned, there have never been any secret talks of any kind with the Taoiseach. On the last two occasions we have issued communiqu¹s on precisely what happened. Thirdly, President Reagan has been very helpful, particularly in his clear condemnation of terrorism and his renewed call on Americans to ensure that they do no contribute to violence.

Mr. Foot: I revert to an answer given by the right hon. Lady a day or two ago on the important question of her attendance at the special session of the United Nations meeting on disarmament in June. In view of the rapidly intensefying nuclear arms race, we are eager that that special session should be a success. We are glad that the right hon. Lady is responding to our invitation to go to the meeting. When will she present to the House and the country the disarmament proposals that she intends to take to that conference? Did President Reagan consult her before he turned down, without any consideration, the proposals made by President Brezhnev? Is it not a good idea to consider such proposals before they are rejected?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the precise date on which I shall be going to the United Nations. The opening session takes some days,

and it is during the opening session that the statements are made. I hope to be there during that time. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that before President Brezhnev made his statement, which froze substantial Soviet superiority on all the SS20s, there was a very important statement by President Reagan, which included the zero option.

Mr. Foot: We welcomed President Reagan's statement when it was made. We believe that if that proposal were translated into a full-scale zero option, we might make some progress. Does not the right hon. Lady recall that the first occasion on which President Brezhnev proposed a holding-up of the establishment of the SS20s was, according to her Government, back in the autumn of 1979? On reflection, would it not have been much better had proper negotiations taken place then, before many of those SS20s were established?

The Prime Minister: President Reagan's suggestion was the zero option. President Brezhnev's response was to keep all the SS20s but not to increase them. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman should address his advice to President Brezhnev, because it takes two to agree to a zero option.

Mr. Foot: Why did the right hon. Lady and her Government refuse to negotiate on these matters before many of those SS20s were established?

The Prime Minister: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman approves a zero option and will urge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] How can this country negotiate on the SS20s? The SALT negotiations were between the United States and the Soviet Union. I am interested in whether the right hon. Gentleman is really interested in a zero option, in which case he will put his pressures on President Brezhnev.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning, during the Committee proceedings of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, not one member of the Opposition Front Bench put in an appearance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary to refer to a Committee before it has reported.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he linked the rise in crime to the rise in unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"?]—were typically unhelpful and misleading? Is she aware that figures released yesterday show that crime in Bedfordshire has risen by 30 per cent. and is committed mainly by children under 16? Is it not, therefore, about time that this House reintroduced corporal punishment?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, the crime statistics in no way show a simple correlation between unemployment and crime. I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not think that corporal punishment will return to this country.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider what additional assistance should be given to the


victims of violent crime, in particular by the provision of telephones and intruder alarm systems for people of pensionable age? Does she accept that in a constituency such as my own, where there is 45 per cent. unemployment, and when in January there was a 50 per cent. increase in burglary, this is clearly a case of the devil finding mischief for idle hands?

The Prime Minister: I made that self-same point on Tuesday during Question Time. As to telephones for the victims of violent crime, if the people are elderly and on supplementary benefit, special provisions could possibly be made. I am not aware of any wider telephone aid to those people, but if the hon. Gentleman has any special proposals, perhaps he will put them forward.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the valiant efforts of the Home Secretary, to which I and my hon. Friends pay tribute—

Mr. Cryer: Take your knife out of his back.

Mr. Stanbrook: —the causes of crime are deep-seated and various and include subjects such as the family, the school, the Church, television and many others? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether we need to take action on these fronts as well as on the criminal law?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that the causes of crime are very deep. If self-discipline breaks down in part of society or throughout society, it is extremely difficult to deal with some of the problems that we are now seeing. It is also vital for all citizens to stand staunchly behind the police in carrying out their duty of upholding the law.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 18 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.

Mr. Dubs: Will the right hon. Lady explain why for each year since she has become Prime Minister the number of serious crimes in England and Wales has increased, whereas when my right hon. Friend the Member for

Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister the number of serious crimes declined in 1977, 1978 and into 1979?

The Prime Minister: I think— [Interruption.]—that the hon. Gentleman will find that the annual number of murders was at its greatest during the time of the last Government. I was trying to find the appropriate table, but am unable to do so.

Mr. James Callaghan: As a matter of simple statistical fact, is it not the case that serious offences recorded by the police—violence against the person, burglary, robbery, theft, handling stolen goods and criminal damage—declined each year during the time that I was Prime Minister, and has gone up each year since? Is it not further the case that, despite what the right hon. Lady said in her election speeches, neither she nor I have any influence at all on those statistics?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his last comment, which is obviously correct. [Interruption.] No, I have not got the number of murders. May I just make this one point? [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, I cannot reinforce what I said about the number of murders. I was thinking, in fact, about something else. [Interruption.] I will, therefore. give the House the relevant statistic of which I was thinking. Although it was not all murders, it was the number of police deaths while on duty, which is an extremely important statistic, and which, equally, I do not think has anything to do with the Government.

Mr. Skinner: Why quote it?

The Prime Minister: Because I am having other statistics quoted at me.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members do not have a right to shout a person down if they do not like what they are hearing. All this is mining Prime Minister's Question Time. Does the Prime Minister wish to continue?

The Prime Minister: I had made the point fsufficiently. What has happened has made a triviality of something that is extremely serious.

Serjeant at Arms

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the Serjeant at Arms in the following terms:
I have the honour to make application that you will be pleased to sanction my retirement on 20 August next from my office by patent of Her Majesty's Serjeant at Arms attending the Speaker of the House of Commons. I have been in the service of this honourable House for upwards of 33 years, and I feel that the time has arrived when it is desirable that I should no longer retain my appointment.
After consultation with the House of Commons Commission, who were unanimous, I have submitted to Her Majesty the name of the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Major Victor Le Fanu, to succeed Sir Peter Thorne, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept my advice.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I am sure that the whole House will have heard with very sincere regret, Mr. Speaker, the letter which you have just read out. The occasion for a formal expression of our appreciation and thanks to Sir Peter Thorne for his long service will arise at a later date when I shall move an appropriate motion. That I do not do so today is in accordance with precedent and does not detract in any way from the gratitude and the very warm regard that I know is felt on both sides of the House towards the Serjeant at Arms for his distinguished service to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: We appreciate that we should on a proper and formal occasion pay tribute to Sir Peter Thorne for all the work that he has done for us. All who have known him realise that he extends to the House his courtesy, experience and knowledge in the most generous terms. I am sure that we shall all join together in wishing to make that tribute to him a proper one when the time comes.

Mr. William Hamilton: Without wishing to throw any grit into the works, may I say that it should be brought to the attention of the House that these gentlemen are servants of the House and that the House should have some means of expressing its views, not only on the merits of the present incumbent in the office, but on the future appointment. The House should reserve the right to decide who its servants should be.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 MARCH—Second Reading of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Agricultural Training Board Bill [Lords] and on the Industrial Training Bill [Lords],  which are consolidation measures.
TUESDAY 23 MARCH—Completion of remaining stages of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill.
Motions on the Social Security Class 1 Contributions Order and on the State Scheme Premiums Order.
WEDNESDAY 24 MARCH—Second Reading of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords].
A debate on the CAP price proposals for 1982–83 contained in European Community Document 4624/82.
Other relevant documents for debate will appear in the Official Report.
Motion on the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 25 MARCH—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on law and order.
FRIDAY 26 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 29 MARCH—A debate on the United Kingdom Trident Programme, Cmnd. No. 8517.

[The following documents are relevant to the debate on the common agricultural policy, to which the following reports of the European Legislation Committee relate:

EEC Documents Nos.

(i) 4624/82 Addendum 1, Add 2, Add 2 Add 1, and Cor 1—Price fixing of certain agricultural products and related measures.

4298/82—Situation of the agricultural markets 1981.

See 15th Report, Session 1981–82, para 1 (H.C. 21-xv)

(ii) 10311/81 10311/1/81 Rev. 1—Guidelines for European agriculture.

See 1st Report, Session 1981–82, para. 3 (H.C. 21-i). 12th Report, Session 1981–82, para. 4 (H.C. 21-xii).

(iii) 8915/81—Multi-annual trade agreements for agricultural products.

See 1st Report, Session 1981–82, para. 2 (H.C. 21-i)

(iv) 7538/81—Sheepmeat regime: variable premiums and clawback.

See 30th Report, Session 1980–81, para. 2 (H.C. 32-xxx).

(v) 10104/81—Wine regime.

See 7th Report, Session 1981–82, para. 2 (H.C. 21-vii).

(vi) (unnumbered Instrument on exceptional distillation of wine).

See 15th Report, Session 1981–82, para. 2 (H.C. 21-xv).]

Mr. Foot: May I put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman? I am sure that the House will appreciate that the answers and the attitude of the Prime Minister a few moments ago only underline the Opposition's wisdom in selecting law and order for debate on Thursday.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having arranged an early debate on the Trident proposal, but may I also say that, in addition to the answers that we have had today, we shall be looking for early debates on the disarmament question and what proposals the Government may be seeking to make later in the year? We believe that this is incomparably the most important question in the world and that it should be fully debated in the House before the special session takes place.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for a debate on the Government's public expenditure White Paper? We believe that it is essential that such a debate should take place separately and before the debate on the Finance Bill.
Finally, will the Leader of the House discover from the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the report of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, and will he ask him to make a statement to the House upon it when the opportunity arises? There is a widespread belief in education circles that the report, which is already long overdue, is being suppressed because it will reveal the dreadful impact which the Government's cuts are having on the education service. When the Secretary of State decides to publish the report, we expect him to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, and I am certain that the whole House is grateful to him and to the Opposition for selecting law and order as the subject for the debate next Thursday. I am sure that he is right in saying that that will he helpful from every point of view.
Monday week's debate will be the second within a year on the Trident programme, and I am sure that the House wants the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right in intimating that progress towards disarmament and the Government's efforts in that direction are an essential part of that debate. I note what he has said about the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the United Nations.
I intend to arrange a separate debate in due course on the public expenditure White Paper. At present, I do not have a date in mind, but I note that the House desires a debate on that subject.
I do not know when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science intends to publish the report of the schools inspectors. However, I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to him and shall discuss with him the possibility of a statement.

Sir William Clark: As the debate on the Budget is over, and as the Budget allows for the potential ownership of index-linked bonds to be extended, will the House be given and early opportunity to discuss the Scott report, which is allied to that? The question whether the country can afford it is exercising the minds of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of the assurances that my right hon. Friend has given, is it not high time that an early debate was held on that subject?

Mr. Pym: I assure my hon. Friend that the Scott report is exercising all our minds. I fully appreciate that the House wishes to debate that subject in due course and that my hon. Friend would like it to be debated soon. I am sorry, but I cannot say when that debate will be held, although the need and desire for it are very much in my mind. I am sorry that I cannot go further than that.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Given today's exchanges, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister will take part in the debate on law and order next Thursday? That might assist the House. Given the concern about the Government's attitude to community health councils, will the right hon. Gentleman

find time soon for a debate on the prayer that is tabled in my name, with the support of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Pym: No Government in recent years have taken more positive action than this Government on law and order. Those matters will be debated next Thursday. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I can say nothing more today.

Mr. David Crouch: When may we expect a statement on heavy lorries? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall be given at least a week's notice of any such statement?

Mr. Pym: There is no tremendous rush. There will be a debate, not immediately, but in due course.

Mr. David Ennals: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn not only to the report, "Single and Homeless" but also to early day motion 321, which has been signed by almost 100 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House is gravely concerned that the first major national report on single homelessness for 10 years has been published by the Department of the Environment on the eve of the Budget and may therefore not receive the serious consideration it deserves in the light of the hard evidence contained in 'Single and Homeless' that: (a) an increasing number of single people are becoming homeless as a result of unemployment and the shortage of housing accommodation, and remaining homeless for prolonged periods, (b) 36 per cent. of them are in their teens or twenties, (c) one in four are women and (a) 85 per cent. of single homeless people would choose to live in ordinary homes if these were available and accessible, is further concerned that these findings come only one month after the publication of another national report 'Homeless Young Offenders'; and calls for a debate on Government policy at the earliest opportunity.]
The matter is very important. Will the right hon. Gentleman find an early opportunity to debate the report and the subject?

Mr. Pym: I cannot find a day for that purpose. I am not sure whether the subject will be relevant to the debate today or next week on the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill. However, I cannot find a separate Government day for that subject in the near future.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to study the important second report on the secondary school curriculum and on examinations for those aged 14 to 16 plus, which has been published by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts? Will he allow an early debate on that subject?

Mr. Pym: I am sorry, but I cannot find time for a debate on that subject in the near future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time today, or before next Thursday, to consider early day motion 351?
[That this House draws the attention of the Government, electorate, and the media, to the undisputed facts that the present Government, when contesting the last General Election when they were elected to power, had in their programme as one of its major items the fact that they would deal with the question of law and order; notes that even with the 'short sharp shock treatment' and


'the reduction of prison sentences and easing up on imprisonment' there is now more crime of all sorts than has ever before been the case in British history, notwithstanding the fact that we now have more police, at far higher rates of pay and allowances than ever before, that the police now have far more aids in persons and equipment than at any time since their formation, such as cars, pandas, two-way radios, computers, helicopters, &amp;c., traffic wardens, traffic police and security firms; and would welcome a truly independent examination as to why this situation should pertain and what action could and should be taken to enable the aged, sick, and the ordinary taxpayer to enjoy their rights of walking the streets of our cities, and to remain in their own homes without being smashed about and robbed by the criminal classes.]
For next Thursday's debate, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to make available all the facts and figures in his Department? We cannot get hold of them because when we table questions the information is not given on the ground of disproportionate cost. Some of us would like to know the truth and whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, said just now—that in bygone days, when there were fewer police and less equipment, there was less crime. We should like to have the figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to be prepared to give the figures that are on record instead of hiding them when asked questions?

Mr. Pym: Of course, I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. All those matters are relevant to next Thursday's debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: When will we have an early opportunity to study the implications of early day motions 262 and 315?
[That this House notes with concern the latest study issued by the Surgeon General of the United States of America which states that 129, 000 Americans are likely to die of cancer in the coming year because they smoke, that this disease accounts for one in four cancer deaths and that the study claims that there is no single action that an individual can take to reduce the risk of cancer more effectively than quitting smoking; and therefore urges Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this information into consideration when forming his proposals for the Budget.]
[That this House considers that the agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry to restrict cigarette advertising has not done enough to reduce the smoking of cigarettes which are widely recognised to be injurious to health; and condemns the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Services to negotiate for a renewal of this agreement instead of introducing legislation to prohibit all advertisements for cigarettes.]
Both of them concern cigarette smoking and have implications for the job prospects of those in Glasgow who have been put out of work by the cigarette factory because of the substantial reduction in demand. That reduction can be largely attributed to the campaign against cigarette smoking.

Mr. Pym: Those matters were germane to the Budget debate, because in a sense they were a consequence of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer's decisions. I do not think that I can provide a separate opportunity in Government time for such a debate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When the right hon. Gentleman announced the debate on Wednesday on EEC prices, he mentioned a number of unspecified documents that are to be debated together with the major documents. Will he confirm that they have all been recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee? Do they cover major subjects and what is the nature of those documents? In future, might it not be better to let us know all the documents and not just some of them?

Mr. Pym: It is an awful bore to read out long lists of documents with complicated numbers. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out about them, he can easily do so without asking for the House's time to be taken up with such statements.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend will recall that in response to my question on 17 December he said that there should be a full debate on the consultation paper "Alternatives to Domestic Rates" and that such a debate might be held towards the end of the consultation period or on its conclusion. As the consultation period will end at the end of the month, will we have a full debate before or immediately after Easter?

Mr. Pym: There will not be a debate before Easter. We should allow the consultation period to end and the Government will then need time to consider the advice that we have received. In due course, there will be a debate. I do not think that I implied that there would be an early debate. However, if I did, I apoligise. In due course, at the appropriate time, we shall have such a debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Next week, will there be a statement on President Reagan's proposed address to both Houses of Parliament? Is there not time for the Government to recognise their mistake—it certainly was a blunder—about the use of Westminster Hall for his address? Will the Government recognise that there is great opposition among most of the Opposition parties to the Government's proposals and that the Royal Gallery should be used?

Mr. Pym: The only thing that matters is that the visit by the President of the United States of America should be a total success from the point of view of the Alliance and the friendship between our two countries. There is no other consideration in our minds.

Mr. Tim Renton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's edition of The Times that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) predicted to trade union leaders yesterday that the Cabinet would be forced to introduce a guillotine on the Employment Bill because of the Labour Party's delaying tactics? Does not that conspiracy of delay amount to an abuse of the procedures of the House which prevents measured discussion of every clause? Would it not be far better to agree to a timetable for the discussion of each clause on the day that a Bill moves upstairs into Committee? May we have an urgent debate on that subject?

Mr. Eric G. Varley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and


to the Leader of the House, but the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) serves on Standing Committee G together with me and 20 other hon. Members under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). He raised that matter this morning, at the beginning our proceedings and made charges of delay—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) cannot raise a point of order when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) is raising one. However, hon. Members cannot refer to what has occurred in Committee before it has reported to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will make his point.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex raised this very matter today and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) ruled on it. She told the Committee and the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but it is out of order to refer to what has happened in a Standing Committee before it reports. It is also out of order to charge hon. Members with being part of a conspiracy. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) realises that hon. Members do not conspire for such purposes. I just wish to make that clear.

Mr. Pym: I do not know about conspiracies, but if delaying tactics are being employed it is wrong to describe them as an abuse of our procedures. They are perfectly legitimate. Whether they are wise or will serve the interests of the House or those whom we represent is another matter. I hope that we can make proper and satisfactory progress with this important Bill. I hope that it will conclude its Committee stage in a normal and proper manner so that further aspects of it can be considered on Report.

Mr. Varley: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment has made it known that he will not accept any amendments to the Employment Bill? How can we make progress when the Government are obdurately telling us that in no circumstances will they listen to our representations or amend the measure?

Mr. Pym: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am not aware of the comment to which he refers. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was just telling the Committee in advance what his attitude would be. It is neither right nor in order to discuss here the progress in Committee.
I hope that the Committee stage will be completed in a normal manner so that the remaining stages of the Bill can be taken on the Floor of the House in reasonable time to ensure that it reaches the statute book by the end of this Session. That is the Government's declared intention.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) wish to refer to my ruling?

Mr. Renton: If you consider that my use of the words "conspiracy of delay" was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I certainly withdraw it.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for the Government to make a statement about early day motion 313?
[That this House deplores the deeply offensive and provocative action of the Israeli authorities in issuing a stamp glorifying the assassins of the British Minister resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne.]
Does he agree that a statement would be appropriate so that the House might hear the Government's view about the Israeli Government's issuing of commemorative stamps in remembrance of the assassination of a British Minister?

Mr. Pym: I have to say "Not next week."

Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is reasonable to make a statement about the privatisation of refuse disposal and collection services by Southend council in view of the early day motion and the amendment, signed by many hon. Members?
[That this House offers congratulations to the Council of the Borough of Southend on Sea for having announced an unchanged borough rate on 15th February 1982, despite inflation and a cut in Government grant, particularly when this unchanged rate follows a reduction in the borough rate last year; notes the benefits which Southend ratepayers are now enjoying from the policy of privatisation pioneered by the council; urges borough councils throughout the United Kingdom to follow the policies of prudence, enterprise and privatisation which have proved themselves in Southend on Sea; and urges Her Majesty's Government to take steps to ensure that ratepayers are levied separately by boroughs and C011lities so that ratepayers can assess more readily the cost to them of the services provided by each level of local government.]
[Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add `condemns the Tory-controlled Southend Council for deceiving the Southend ratepayers by initially agreeing to a contract to have refuse cleared by Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. from all newly-built homes in Southend at the rate of £15 per hundred dwellings and after the tender had been accepted to change the contract to one of £15 for each new dwelling; draws attention to the fact that Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. did not submit the lowest tender and that some assets of the Southend Council cleansing department were virtually given away; and condemns the British Broadcasting Corporation on their 'Nationwide' programme about Southend on 15th February when it failed to point out any of these matters in a blatantly free-enterprise, Saatchi and Saatchi-type production.']
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a statement about the need for a public inquiry when a Tory council has handed over a contract to a firm, one of the directors of which is a leading Tory councillor in a neighbouring authority? Is he aware that the tender was not the lowest and that many of the vehicles were almost given away? Is he further aware that the contract was changed to the benefit of the firm after the tender had been accepted by the Tory council? Bearing in mind that the refuse collection yard was almost handed over free to Exclusive Cleaning Limited, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a statement and a public inquiry?

Mr. Pym: I am not impressed by the suggestion that the time of the House should be taken up by the collection of refuse in Southend.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House find time to make a statement on the proposal to sack 26 skilled film makers from the Central Office of Information? Is he aware that those film makers have contributed massively to the export drive of this country by making many prize winning films that have demonstrated the quality of our products? Does he agree that the film makers are receiving the reward of being put on the dole queue without any reason being advanced in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Protection Act? Does he agree that the Government and the Civil Service should set an example rather than undermine the legislative position? May we have a statement?

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether a statement is appropriate. That matter must be taken up with my right hon. Friends.

Council of Agriculture Ministers (Meeting)

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Brussels from 15 to 17 March.
Ministers resumed their consideration of the Commission's price proposals for 1982. There were wide differences of view in the Council, but some progress was made in clarifying positions on the major products. Work will continue at the Council's next meeting on 31 March and 1 and 2 April.
An attempt was made to reach agreement on a measure for the distillation of surplus wine into alcohol. With the support of the Netherlands and Belgium, we argued that we were unable to agree upon such arrangements until the consequences for the alcohol market had been studied and until we were sufficiently assured that there would be no unregulated sales that would have a serious impact on this country's industrial alcohol producers.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the House, even if he did not have much to report, because it gives us the opportunity to pose a few questions.
The Opposition entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the proposals to convert wine into alcohol. Quite apart from building monstrous lakes and lochs of wine at enormous cost to the British taxpayer, the proposed method of producing ethyl alcohol is expensive, and we must protect our own producers, not least those in Scotland.
Will right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Soviet Union is purchasing wine from the EEC for 5p a pint?
The statement raises a serious issue. Did nothing happen at the meeting? The Financial Times today tells us that not one iota of what was said was new and that the Minister was simply marking time. How much more time will he take? Is he not playing the game wrongly? Rather than allying himself with those attacking the French, who are attempting to operate national aids, should he not seize the opportunity to open up the Market's tight and stringent regulations to achieve some flexibility, secure independent operation and proper national aids in Britain, support the industry where it should be supported, and thereby give some comfort to our consumers?

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. It is right at this time of year, even if there is little to report, to give the House the opportunity to ask some questions. I note the hon. Gentleman's Scottish influence. He is now converting lakes into lochs. We will take that into account in future wording.
With regard to the meeting, as with the previous Government, it is traditional that, before the main attempt to get a price fixing, there should be a meeting at which the various member countries set out their positions and main demands. It was expected that this meeting would be of that kind.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about national aids. As he knows, Britain operates legitimate national aids. National aids to hill farms are much better under this


Government than they were under the Labour Government. It is our policy to continue that assistance. The aids, which are agreed by the Commission, do not violate the laws of fair competition within the Community. However, our view is that the aids operated by the French are designed purely to give them an advantage over British goods in the market place.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not time that we were given a fairly full disclosure of the nature of the discussions taking place? The Minister still has not told us about that. We have to pick it up from Edith Cresson or President Mitterrand. We have no way of knowing whether what they say is correct. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us whether the overall budget is holding matters up. Will he at some time give us a fuller picture? If not, he will understand that next Wednesday we shall have to explore the matter in some depth.

Mr. Walker: Traditionally, before a major price fixing meeting, there is a debate in the House. That debate will take place next Wednesday. The degree to which I report the details of the discussions takes into consideration the patience of the House.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that members of the National Farmers Union of Scotland are delighted at the strength of his opposition to the demands of other member nations. Will he give a firm undertaking to continue that opposition in order to achieve a proper price review to the satisfaction of the British farming industry?

Mr. Walker: Clearly, the object is to obtain a price fixing which takes into consideration the balance of interest between farmers and consumers and their mutual interest in ensuring that production in this country continues at a suitable pace. That will be our objective in the negotiations.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) as to whether the Russians are buying wine from the EEC at 5p per pint?

Mr. Walker: I do not know the details of the most recent negotiations, but wine has been sold to the Soviet Union, as it has been for many years.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however long, protracted and even alcoholic the negotiations may be, any revaluation of the green pound would be unacceptable to the industry and, I suspect, to Conservative Back Benchers?

Mr. Walker: I think that the Government's reversal of the green pound policy has been of considerable benefit to British agriculture and to the economy as a whole. That is why we have made it clear that the Commission's proposals to revalue the green pound are entirely unnacceptable.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most effective and practical ways of reforming the CAP would be to ensure that proposed price increases are below prevailing rates of inflation? Will he try to establish a general rule that no individual price increase should exceed the minimum rate of inflation in any Community country?

Mr. Walker: I think that it is wrong to make a rule about every commodity, as there may be times when it is

of advantage to depart from it, but during the Government's period of office price increases in the annual price fixing have been well below the annual rate of inflation and below the inflation in food prices and wages in the same period.

Mr. David Crouch: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strong line on a matter in which British Agriculture Ministers are often less interested. There could have been a trade-off if the Minister had been more interested in apples, lamb and butter. I am glad that we have a British Minister who is concerned about wine. Many millions of gallons are involved. If the proposal had been accepted, the weight of alcohol would have greatly disturbed the balance of production opportunity for industrial alcohol in this country. It is a very serious matter. Will my right hon. Friend consider putting to the other members of the Council, when he meets them again at the end of the month and in April, the suggestion that this alcohol could be turned to uses other than wine, such as food or possible admixture with petrol?

Mr. Walker: We have already made it clear to the Council that we believe that there are better methods of disposing of the surplus than that at present envisaged. We have suggested conversion into animal foodstuffs—a project that one major British company has developed to quite a high degree. The rather ill prepared proposals before us in the past two days were not agreed, because in that form they could have done considerable damage to British industry.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Was the equalisation of fuel costs to glasshouse growers discussed? If not, can the Minister give us any information about current progress on this vital issue?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in this topic. Bilateral talks and negotiations on this matter took place with Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Holland. Having had talks, the Commissioner reported that he felt that there was no reason why agreement should not be reached within the next week and that he would report to the Commission to that effect next week.

Mr. John Farr: Was any progress made towards solving the problem facing British producers with regard to the co-responsibility levy? Secondly, was any progress made on the illicit aid of more than £500 million given by the French to their farmers?

Mr. Walker: Discussions took place on the co-responsibility levy. We made it clear that we opposed the giving of any preference to smaller producers and that on balance we favoured abolition of the levy and a lower price for milk. That view, however, was not shared by the Commission or by many member States. Nevertheless, we made it clear that that was the United Kingdom's position.
On French national aid, since I last reported to the House the Commission has announced that it has commenced legal proceedings against the French Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister get away from all these obscure answers and tell us straight what is happening? Will he guarantee that there will be no overall increase in prices greater than that offered for nurses' wages? If a Treasury Minister can say that, because of the recession and other problems caused by the


Government, nurses can have no more than 6 per cent. as that is in the so-called national interest, why should another Minister go to the Common Market and agree with Sir Henry Plumb, leader of the Tories in the European Assembly, to a possible deal of 16 per cent. or a patched-up deal of just below the inflation rate of 12 per cent.? Why does he not tell him that he cannot have more than 4 per cent.?

Mr. Walker: First, I am glad to say that during the Government's period of office nurses' incomes have risen very much more than those of farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Secondly, I shall not agree any price increases which would raise the food price index to anything like the levels that occurred under the Labour Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great sympathy for the almost impossible task that he faces in seeking to protect the longterm interests of British farmers and consumers within the framework of the extremely complicated budget negotiations, which are greatly affected by his own private set of negotiations? Is he further aware that support for his firm stand will extend to any further steps that he may take to achieve agreement?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. As always, it is a difficult negotiation of great importance to the agriculture industry and to the British economy as a whole.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Minister received any representations from the edible oil industry about the EEC and economic problems? What plans has he to protect the industry?

Mr. Walker: I have made it clear that in no circumstances will we agree to a tax on oil.

Mr. David Myles: As the talks drift closer to the start of the livestock marketing year, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the concern of livestock

producers about the level of support for the next marketing year. Will he make a statement on any alteration in prices and the date from which it will apply?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give assurances about dates from which anything will apply as I do not know when agreement will be reached. However, I can give assurances that the livestock sector in this country will continue to obtain substantial benefit from the sheepmeat regime. The Commission, at our behest, has advocated continuation of the beef premium scheme, so important assurances can be given to British livestock producers on both those matters.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a formula connecting the revaluation or devaluation of green currencies with national inflation rates would be fair both to member States and to farmers and consumers?

Mr. Walker: I know that such a proposal has been floated in the European Parliament. Certainly, it would be most unfair to British farmers to have a revaluation which in real terms would give British farmers a far lower increase than those of other countries in Europe.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend in his discussions take account of the small but growing wine industry in this country, which is improving in quality, especially in the Eastern counties? With regard to his answer about Soviet wine purchases, is he aware that the Soviet Union actually sells wine to the EEC—although I regret to say that some of it has been used as paint remover?

Mr. Walker: Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a connoisseur of Soviet wines, nor, I must confess, of English wines either, but I hope they will improve, expand and have great success.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister ensure that the proposal to convert wine into industrial alcohol, at huge cost to the British taxpayer and other taxpayers, is totally rejected? Is he aware that it threatens thousands of jobs in this country, particularly in central Scotland? May I make it clear to him that there must be a permament solution if we are to secure future important investment in this area?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the view and stand that we take on this issue.

Stone-Platt Industries

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the steps the Midland Bank announced this morning by which to put Stone-Platt Industries into receivership".
I am conscious, Mr. Speaker, that we have had an extended Business Question Time and a ministerial statement, but the effect of this decision on a company of Stone-Platt's size, employing 7, 000 people, with a turnover of £120 million to £130 million, with interests throughout the country, is not a matter of insignificance.
Stone-Platt, like many other companies, allowed itself some years ago to fall behind international competition in vital areas of its product development. But in recent years, spanning the last Labour Government and this Conservative Government, the company has at all levels, with great determination and skill, sought to put the problems right—problems almost entirely due to previous inadequate management decisions on product development.
It is important to note that the attempt to restructure and rebuild this company has taken place under both Labour and Conservative Governments and has had the full support of the Department of Industry under the 1972 Industry Act. Money has been made available by the Government from the taxpayer for a variety of purposes and, most important, for providing grants to accelerate the research and development necessary for the new product programmes.
The Government have played their full role. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has also done its bit. The company's response to date, according to this Conservative Government's own most prized and cherished criteria, has been to face up to the most unpleasant decisions. Confronted with the massive recession in the capital equipment market at home and abroad, particularly for textile machinery, which is its problem sector, it has closed down factory after factory. In Accrington alone two out of three factories have been closed and the work force has been reduced from 6, 000 people to 1, 000. In other areas of the company's activities the recession has also been felt but they have been able to trade at least at a break-even point.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, it was a time when "usury was becoming the only profitable activity". The other companies in the SPI group have good, technically advanced products. They are not household names, because they are not consumer products, but they are world leaders in their field. There is Scragg at Macclesfield with 30 per cent. of the world market in texturising equipment. In Thames and Kent there are factories specialising in air conditioning equipment for trains and underground systems. This company has 50 per cent. of the world market. This one company, put at risk by the decision announced today, is turning over nearly £50 million per annum, with an order book to cover a whole year's forward production. The company has orders for equipping the underground systems of New York, Seoul and Iraq.
These are success stories, by any standards, of companies whose credibility in the market place has by

today's precipitate receivership been severely damaged. It reminds one of the enforced receivership, obviously on a much larger scale, of Rolls-Royce, a decision that I am sure the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) bitterly regrets, as he would say if he were in the House.
Does anyone in the House believe that Japan would put companies that are high technology world leaders through the hoop of enforced receivership with the loss of confidence, doubt and uncertainty that that creates in the market place? Does any Member believe that the French or German banks, working closely as they do in their national interest with their manufacturing industries, would have taken the decision that the Midland bank has taken today? Of course not.
What makes this whole matter even less comprehensible, both from a financial and an industrial point of view, is spelt out clearly in the press release issued at 10.30 this morning by Stone-Platt Industries. I will not delay the House by quoting from it but I would, by reference to it, recapitulate the situation that makes this decision of the Midland bank unacceptable.
Stone-Platt Industries, at great cost to all its employees, has made enormous strides towards viability. This progress has been helped significantly at every stage by both Labour and Conservative Governments, by the Department of Industry and by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The company is currently breaking even and is operating within its bank facilities. That is a point that is stated clearly in the press release. The company's major shareholders, ECI, FCI, Prudential and M and G are prepared to enter into further commitments and have expressed their willingness further to assist the group. That, too, is clear from the press notice. It is to the shareholders that we must look for their protection, because they stand behind the bank. It is the bank that has jumped in at their expense with this decision.
Despite all that, as I have said, the Midland bank has pulled the plug. If I called this a "bloody shame", I am sure that those sentiments would be echoed by the shareholders, by the board of directors and by everybody who works in the company. Indeed, those words were used to me by one of the parties—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those words may well have been used but they are not parliamentary language and the hon. Member is addressing the House of Commons.

Mr. Robinson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, immediately and willingly withdraw them.
I have only two further points to make. First, there are further dimensions that enter into the equation. There will be further redundancies in a group that has been so badly hit. At least 1, 000 other jobs and further productive capacity will be lost needlessly. Secondly, a point that is important in itself and in relation to redundancies created and to the productive capacity that has been chucked to the wind, is the question of bank profits. This year bank profits are 18 per cent. up on what they were last year, which was a record in itself. Curiously, only the Midland has still to announce its figures; they are to be announced on the Stock Exchange at 10.30 am tomorrow, Assuming that the Midland achieves the average percentage increase of the other three major clearing banks, its profits will be in the region of £275 million. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that that is three times the entire turnover of Stone-Platt Industries.
I suppose that it is a pure coincidence that the Stone-Platt announcement preceded by 24 hours the announcement of what are bound to be record profits for the Midland bank. Whatever the reason for the indecent haste and pressure, this receivership will be seen as a major black spot for the banking institutions. It will mark a nadir in their ability to understand and cater for manufacturing industry, particularly the medium-sized engineering companies such as Stone-Platt, companies that have decided to leave the old technologies and face the difficult future of the new, but that need banking institutions to stay with them and see the whole job through. It is for that reason as much as for the other reasons I have set out that I consider that this issue should be debated as a matter of urgency in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
the steps announced this morning by the Midland bank to put Stone-Platt Industries into receivership".
The whole House will have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said. The House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

FIREARMS

Mr. Eldon Griffiths, supported by Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. John Lee and Mr. George Gardiner, presented a Bill to apply the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 (with certain exceptions) to imitation firearms which are readily convertible into firearms to which section 1 of that Act applies: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered, 
That the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses except those relating to Part II; New Schedules except those relating to Part II; Amendments to Clauses 1 to 25 and 35 to 41; Amendments to Schedules 1 to 3; New Clauses relating to Part H; New Schedules relating to Part II; Amendments to Clauses 26 to 34 and 42 to 45; and Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5.—[Mr. Rossi.]

New Clause 1

REVIEW OF DECISIONS

'(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring or enabling, in prescribed circumstances—

(a) the Secretary of State to review any determination of his under this Part; and
(b) an insurance office or (on a reference from an insurance officer) a local tribunal to review any other determination under this Part, whether made by an insurance officer or by a local tribunal or Commissioner;

and as to the the consequences of any such review.

(2) Regulations under this section may in particular provide for any decision on a review carried out in accordance with the regulations to be subject to appeal in such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed.'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the clause is to give power to make regulations enabling the Secretary of State, insurance officers or local tribunals to review certain decisions in the circumstances prescribed in regulations.
The regulation-making power provides for review by the Secretary of State of any of his determinations under clause 11, such as whether a person is an employer or employee. The power also provides for review by the insurance officer or local tribunal of any decision made by an insurance officer, local tribunal of commissioner.
In Committee the Government undertook that they would substitute for the provision that gives the Secretary of State a right of appeal one giving insurance officers power to review decisions that appear to stand in need of correction.
We shall come later to amendments to clause 13—amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27—which will give full effect to the new clause.
Powers to review are an integral and well-established part of the existing adjudication procedures for social security benefits. Their purpose is to provide a simple and straightforward means of correcting decisions. They are particularly useful where, despite the efforts of the Department to establish the full facts, a further vital piece of evidence emerges after the insurance officer has given his decision. Without review powers, such decisions could be revised only by going to the local tribunal or commissioner. When this happens the time for appealing is almost invariably exhausted. Although it was not originally thought necessary to include review powers in the Bill, when lawyers and officials came to study the


position in greater depth it was recognised that the absence of such powers would mean inconvenience for employers and employees alike.
That was the point that was made in Committee, when hon. Members questioned whether it was necessary for the Secretary of State to have powers of appeal rather than having the cases reviewed, as we now propose. We considered that it would be wrong perhaps to force employers or employees to attend a tribunal hearing when a far simpler procedure could be made available. It is for this reason that we have produced the clause, in answer to the representations made in Committee. I am sure that all hon. Members will see it as beneficial to employers and employees.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

PAYMENTS OF STATUTORY SICK PAY WRONGLY MADE

'(1) Regulations may make provision for the payment to an employer, by the Secretary of State and in prescribed circumstances, of an amount calculated in accordance with the regulations in any case where—

(a) a payment purporting to be a payment of statutory sick pay (the "payment wrongly made") has been made by that employer to a person (the "recipient"); and
(b) that employer was not liable to make that payment under this Part.

(2) Regulations may make provision, in relation to such a case, for the recovery by the Secretary of State from the recipient, in prescribed circumstances, of an amount calculated in accordance with the regulations.

(3) Regulations under this section may make such incidental and supplemental provision in relation to any payment made, or amount recovered, by the Secretary of State under the regulations as he considers expedient and may, in particular, provide—

(a) for any such payment to be treated as discharging, or in prescribed circumstances as partially discharging, any liability of the recipient to repay to the employer the payment wrongly made;
(b) for any such payment to be treated, in prescribed circumstances, as a payment to the recipient of a prescribed benefit ("benefit" having the meaning given by the regulations).

(4) In this section "employer" includes a person believing himself to be an employer of the recipient in question.

(5) Any payment made by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations under this section shall be paid out of the National Insurance Fund and any amount recovered by him in accordance with the regulations shall be paid by him into that Fund.'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendment No. 65.

Mr. Rossi: The clause replaces paragraph 12 of schedule 2, which is deleted by amendment 65. Paragraph 12 provides in certain circumstances for the reimbursement by the Secretary of State of employers who have paid statutory sick pay in error when national insurance benefit was due instead. The clause widens the scope of that provision in order to encompass the generality of cases where employers have paid statutory sick pay in error and in good faith.
We think that it would be wrong, if an employer has complied in good faith with, for example, a decision of an adjudicating authority which is subsequently reversed on

appeal, to leave him to recover the overpaid money from the employee himself. The clause accordingly provides powers to prescribe the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will reimburse an employer who pays statutory sick pay in error, and in which such amounts will be recoverable by the Secretary of State from the employee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

UP-RATING OF CHILD BENEFIT

The rate for child benefit prescribed by regulations made under section 3 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 shall not be less in the year 1982–83 than the figure of L6·00, which figure shall up-rated in accordance with the procedure set out in section 125 of the principal Act any by a percentage not lower than that specified in section 125(3)(a)(ii) in 1982 and every succeeding year.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not intend to delay the House long. For the first time in eight years I broke a long-standing rule of mine and wrote to 10 Conservative hon. Members telling them that if the new clause was selected I would refer briefly to their views. I have decided, in the interests of progress, not to go through all the worthy statements that they have made, but I shall list who they are. They are child benefit supporters, and that fact needs to be put on the record.
I decided, also contrary to my normal practice, to cut out the politics and stick to the facts of child benefits when dealing with the clause. I think that party politics should be brought to the Dispatch Box. I am often told that we should take politics out of social security. I believe that we should put it in and reinforce it, but I shall stick to the facts, as I want to be brief.
The amendment would increase child benefit to £6 in November, instead of the Government's announced figure of £5·85. Therefore, the clause is extremely modest—much too modest. For child benefit to be restored to the real purchasing power that it had when the present Government came to office it should rise to £6·25 in November. I do not think that there is any argument between the two sides of the House about that figure. Therefore, when the benefit rises to £5·85 it will be 40p a week less than it would have needed to be to maintain its purchasing power.
The Child Poverty Action Group put up a very good case before the Budget, although in its pre-Budget memorandum it kept lowering its target on every page, saying in the end that perhaps as a last-ditch stand it would settle for £5·85—and that is what it got.
There are Conservative Members who have supported child benefit and made great claims for its beneficial effect on the working poor. I think of the hon. Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams); Bath (Mr. Patten); Abingdon (Mr. Benyon); Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), now a member of the Government; Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley); Anglesey (Mr. Best); Hornchurch (Mr. Squire); Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who recently talked out a Bill to increase the death grant and who has now taken the Prime Minister's shilling and joined the Government—a great supporter of child benefit; Somerset, North (Mr. Dean); and Wallasey (Mrs.


Chalker), such a stout defender of child benefit when the Labour Government were in office but someone who has allowed child benefit to lose its real value while she has been a member of the Government. I am not surprised that the hon. Lady took the opportunity to move away from the Department of Health and Social Security, so that she would not be on the Government Front Bench today to reply to this debate.
All those hon. Members supported, in one way or another, an increase in child benefit in real terms, but they have not even managed to ensure that child benefit kept up with inflation since they came to power. Our clause seeks not to restore it to its value when Labour left office but to make a modest extra contribution of 15p a week per child on top of the amount which the Government have decreed mothers shall receive in November.
No one disputes the figures. I do not have the precise cost, but it cannot be more than about £75 million. That is chicken feed in terms of public expenditure and in terms of the tax relief granted under the old child tax allowances to the well-off.
Child benefit is not a big policy matter that the Government are trying to sell to the country. It is the one benefit which can have the greatest impact on getting families out of the poverty trap. It is our aim to get child support to the same level for each child in a family whether the head of the family is in or out of work. We have a long way to go there.
Proposals will be made to bring about that change. All we can do at the moment is to attempt to take a modest step along the road by giving the House the chance to vote for £6 a week instead of the measly sum the Government are offering this November.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I am sure the House does not wish to be detained too long on new clause 3, and will wish to spend more time debating new clauses 4 and 13.
We have to remember why child benefit was introduced. The aim was to treat people who had children, whether or not they paid tax, in exactly the same way, recognising that children place a considerable financial burden on the family. We have already achieved that.
The further aim of introducing child benefit was to remove the need to pay child additions on many of the other benefits that were payed—sickness, unemployment and invalidity. It seemed quite clear that if we could remove child additions from those benefits we would simplify the system and the payment of those benefits, and refute the allegation that people were better off on benefit than in work. Child benefit would be paid for those people whether in work or not.
Against that background, we have made very slow progress indeed. During the period of the Labour Government we made small improvements in the real value of child benefits. Since 1979 we have seen the real level of child benefits decline. Therefore, we have not improved the position of those people who are receiving additions for their children when they are on

unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. What this Government have done has eroded the value of those additions.
Under the Bill, during the first eight weeks of sickness, child benefit will be abolished altogether. It will not make life easier for people with children. It will not ease the problem of benefits being paid to people who are not working as opposed to people who are working. Therefore, the case for moving child benefit up significantly still stands, and the tragedy of the Budget is that the Government have done nothing to help that situation. We need to get the benefit back to £6·25 merely to restore the losses since 1979, but we have not achieved that.
We are making a modest proposal for the extra 15p which will make life a lot simpler for the post offices and will be a useful addition. It is a change that I believe the House ought to introduce. We can return to the whole issue on amendment No. 10, when I will speak on the disadvantages of this Bill for families with children. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak briefly on the level of child benefit. I preface my short remarks with two comments. First, I hope that either the Government or the Opposition will make a day available for a proper discussion of child benefit, I hope in a non-partisan way, so that we who are interested can be brought together for a medium-term plan agreed across the House such as we had some years ago on the second pension scheme. I regard help for those with children as being as important as the help we have managed to arrange over a period for the retired. The care for those who cannot care for themselves is a high duty, and we could discharge it better if we had—

Mr. David Ennals: I ask the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Peter Bottomley) to elaborate on that. He will agree that there was great advantage in coming to an agreement in the House on a new pensions scheme. It required an initiative to be taken by an energetic Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it also requires an initiative by an energetic Minister such as the Under-Secretary of State to achieve unanimity in the House on child benefit?

Mr. Bottomley: I accept on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) the compliment paid by the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will wish me to reflect that compliment back to the right hon. Member for the work he did on pensions.
Secondly, I should like to ask what happens on child income support. The introduction of child benefit and the increases that have been made to that benefit over the years mean that families whose income is below the tax threshold are now receiving more help in real terms than they did 27 years ago. I want to put that on record; I expect my hon. Friend will remind me if on other occasions I do not say that.
I am also glad that the Government saw fit to give a higher increase in child benefit over the last two years taken together than have in tax allowances. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is looking slightly surprised. We have had too many years when tax allowances have gone up and child benefit has not.
My concluding remarks are about the level of child benefit. If we are serious about getting benefit to families


when they have children, an increase on the married man's tax allowance misses the target. If we allow for extra pay increases for people at work, that misses those who are not at work. Pay increases go indiscriminately to those at higher levels of pay and those without children. Child benefit was brought in for a purpose, and if part of that purpose is to help the battle against inflation, we need to encourage the Government, the TUC and the CBI to set the discussion of the place of child benefit in terms of family income support. It is a myth to expect everyone to be able to support his family on what he brings home, from work. I agree that we should try to lower the burden of taxation, but one of the most effective ways of doing that is to increase child benefit for families with children.
What has become clear during the life of this Government and previous Governments is that child benefit is now a far more popular issue to raise because it is seen effectively as a child tax credit. I know that many of my hon. Friends in Government would be able to make a better speech than I if they were not in Government. If I were ever a member of the Government, I know that I should have to keep silent about my own personal views. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say, but I should in all fairness warn him that I intend to vote for the new clause

Mr. Frank Field: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker). He showed how the real value of child benefit has fallen, taking as a starting point the period when this Government assumed office. He said that he did not wish to be partisan in presenting the new clause. Perhaps that is why the argument was not developed further. The Government, in 1979, made record cuts of £4.6 billion in taxation in their first Budget. If families with children had received their fair share of those tax cuts—and they could only receive their fair share of them by increases in child benefits—we should have had an increase in child benefits of £1·83 a week. That is not an unimportant message for the Opposition who are pledged to reverse those 1979 tax cuts.
When we made tax cuts, although the tax burden had moved against the lower paid and those with children, over the last 20 years they received little of the largesse when the cuts were made. That is my first point.
Secondly, I wish to put on record the reasons why child benefit is such a key benefit and why I hope the whole House will support new clause 3. It is the most effective weapon that we have for combating child poverty and, sadly, under both Labour and Conservative Governments the number of poor children has increased. To push back the tide of poverty we must increase child benefits. Since the abolition of child tax allowances, Governments have no way of maintaining tax equity between those with children and the childless other than by increasing child benefit. In our next debate we shall no doubt mention the problem of work incentives in our society. The most effective way of increasing incentives to work, at least for those with children, is to increase child benefits.
Those are three powerful reasons for supporting new clause 3, but there is another. Child benefit is about increasing freedom. It is about redistributing income from men to women and from adults to children, and it is about trusting mothers to do the right thing. We hear much from both sides of the House about how important freedom is, but one way of increasing the freedom of choice of

millions of households would be to make an increase in child benefit one of the first priorities of Government fiscal policy. For that and the other reasons, I hope that the House will support new clause 3.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is worth recalling what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this matter when he introduced the Budget. He said that child benefit
is an important souce of income for many—especially the lower paid with large families. From next November it will go up by 60p a week, from £5·25 to £5·85".
This is the relevant sentence:
It will thus have been increased by 23 per cent. over two years, and so fully protected against inflation."—[Official Report, 9 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 738–9.]
Why not three years? In fact, it has not kept up with inflation, which is the whole point of the new clause. We wish to see that it does at least keep up with inflation,
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to the first Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when there were enormous handouts to people earning over £20, 000 a year. The people who have suffered most under the Government are families with children. To be fair, the problem goes further back than the day when the Government took office. During the past 20 years at least, families with children have suffered more than most because of the tax burden.
The Government gave an undertaking in November 1981 to make good the 2 per cent. shortfall in the uprating of social security benefits in November 1982, and the Chancellor said, fairly, that he had fulfilled that undertaking. However, that did not apply to child benefit or to one-parent benefit. Although many benefits were not covered by that pledge on the 2 per cent. shortfall, both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Services stated that the final decision would be taken in the Budget. I have already quoted the relevant part of the Budget Statement.
We have received a document from the Library research department—research note 61 dated February 1982—entitled "The November 1982 Social Security Up-rating: A Pre-Budget View". Table 2 shows, among other things, what the child benefit should be on certain assumptions of varying rates of inflation in the forthcoming year. If we take the November 1981 child benefit of £5·25 and the Treasury's estimate of inflation for the forthcoming year of 10 per cent., on this table the child benefit should rise to £5·75. That is lop mole than the Treasury estimate, which assumes that the Treasury estimate is accurate. I do not know whether it is, but there is no doubt that child benefits, among others, have diminished during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The Government should be generous. Our proposition is not extravagant, and at a time when families with children have suffered more than most the Government should, for a change, not play the part of Scrooge but should give a little extra to those people to show that at least they have a slight trace of humanity in them. We shall accept whatever crumbs they are prepared to give.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his new position. He has a nice liberal look about him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He used to be a wet.

Mr. Hamilton: Let him make a record for himself by making this tiny concession in his maiden speech.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): In the circumstances of today's debate, I feel that I have been let off rather more lightly on my maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box than might otherwise have been the case. I shall try to respond in the spirit that has marked the debate.
I wish, quite genuinely, to pay tribute—I hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended—to everyone who has spoken in the debate for the part that they have undoubtedly played for a long time in making it possible for child benefit to be seen as being as important as everyone now accepts. There are differences between us about what level it should be now or at any past or future time, but, compared with only three or four years ago, the extent to which there is cross-party unity in the Chamber about the importance of child benefit and the general aims that we espouse is a tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) did not include me in his list of those who have made nice noises about child benefit in the past. I do not know whether it was some inadequacy in his research or whether the right remarks failed to get reported, but he could readily have made me an eleventh person on the list.
I do not—nor, I would guess, does my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) or any other of my hon. Friends mentioned—wish to go back on the spirit of what we have said in the past about child benefit. I remain a firm advocate of the change to child benefit. I remain a firm believer in and a firm supporter of retaining it at the highest possible level consistent with the practical realities with which any Government must try to cope. I recognise that as soon as one says "at the highest possible level", one is begging many questions, and that is where the difference between us lies this afternoon. There is no difference as to the importance of the subject and about where we wish to get to, but there is some difference about a practical level at the moment.
I wish to comment briefly on what I regard as the three main aspects of the points that have been made in the past half-hour. First, there is the broad central proposal to raise the amount of child benefit from next November to £6 instead of the Government's proposed £5·85. I am not sure, especially after considering the proceedings in Committee, why the figure of £6 was chosen, except that it is a nice round figure. It is conceivable that it was thought that it might have some attraction to hon. Members other than Opposition Members. For whatever reason it was chosen, it has some advantages in being a round figure, and I understand why the Opposition have chosen it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have proposed an increase that is already fully in line with the Government's commitments. It matches the estimated 9 per cent. level of inflation between last November and next November and makes up for the 2 per cent. underestimate of inflation last year.
In response to the hon. member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), the Library brief, in referring to a figure of 10 per cent. was referring to the Treasury's best estimate of inflation at some time before the Budget. That 10 per cent. figure was revised down to 9 per cent. on the basis of the most up-to-date information to form the basis of the

Budget calculations. It is important that we should be clear about that. There is no question of trying to fiddle the figures. When considering what has happened, for example, to oil prices over the past few weeks, hon. Gentlemen will understand that inflation has made some things look more encouraging. That is the only reason for the change.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr, other hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke as if 15p was nothing much to worry about between friends. I can understand how it can be presented in that way. However, in a full year it is about £80 million, and, even in this day and age, that sum cannot be dismissed merely as peanuts.
If it were felt that there was another £80 million to spend for the social security budget, one would have to consider, at the very least, other possible ways of spending it. I shall not attempt to give the House a shopping list, but all hon. Members now in the Chamber—many of whom I know to have taken a long-term interest in social security matters—could readily think of other policies and priorities to which they would also attach importance. The Government must strike a balance between one aim and others.

Mr. Field: What policy does the Minister put higher than an increase in child benefit?

Mr. Newton: I said that we would all have our own shopping lists. I shall not attempt off the cuff, while at the Dispatch Box, in answer to an intervention—I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made it—to attempt to list the Government's next possible priority on social security.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Putting the question in a different way and asking it less rhetorically, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I put forward ways of finding the £80 million. It could easily have been found by not putting up the married man's element of tax allowance above the rate of inflation.

Mr. Newton: That is simply a different way of putting the same problem that faces the Government. There is a choice between different ways of spending £80 million. Not everybody in the House would immediately accept that a policy that added to the problems of married couples at this time, whether they had children or not, by failing to index their tax allowances, would necessarily be the right thing to do. However, we do not need to spend much time arguing that.
Everyone will agree that we all have a list of things that we would wish to do. I am doing no more than making the point that the Government—facing the problem of distributing limited resources—must choose, on the balance of priorities, on what to spend them.
I shall not make too much of the new clause. The Opposition obviously intended the increase to £6 to run from next November. I am advised by lawyers in my Department that there is at last a possibility that the effect would be to increase it to £6 from April—next month. Perhaps I should warn my hon. Friends that there is a possibility that they would be voting for something that might turn out not to be as modest as it was presented by the Opposition, but costing perhaps £200 million or £300 million. I do not want to build too much on that, but it ought to be mentioned.
I am grateful for the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggesting that some of the things that I said to him in other fora over the past few weeks are beginning to have a little effect. I am grateful to him for recognising that some of the comparisons that can be made with categories of claimants 25 to 27 years ago are a little misleading in that, whatever else may be said, for those below the tax threshold in 1955, with however many children or with only one child, the present child benefit represents a huge increase in the amount of child support paid. In that sense, we have moved a very long way towards what all hon. Members wish to see—an improvement in the position of the less well-off in society. That was part and parcel of the move to child benefit. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that that is part of what has happened.
The second general aspect raised by the new clause is, of course. statutory indexation—bringing child benefit within the rules applying to a number of other benefits and imposing an uprating each year in line with rises in the retail price index. I doubt whether hon. Gentlemen expected me to go as far as conceding that today. However, I have every intention of resting on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wansted and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the former Secretary of State, said on 28 July 1980. He said:
We are committed to the child benefit system, and it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value."—[Official Report,  28 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1063.]
That pledge, relating to the child benefit rate to be established in November 1980, was made in the debate on that uprating. It has been firmly and plainly kept in relation to the child benefit rate established at that time.
At the risk of raising the level of aggression a little, I was a bit disturbed that Opposition Members should laugh at my right hon. Friend and myself this afternoon. They should recognise that commitments of this sort must be made with some recognition of economic and other circumstances. I would not be prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box and make promises about what we should do, regardless of the economic circumstances. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), as Secretary of State for Social Services, must remember some of the difficulties that he experienced when the economy was so difficult. Nothing is more damaging to the economy and, in the end, to the interests of the people we are seeking to serve than to make commitments of this sort without regard to economic reality.

Mr. Ennals: The Minister knows perfectly well that, with the current taxation system, he could easily have paid this relatively small sum from the additional benefits accrued by those in the higher earnings brackets. That would have been the way to do it. That is how the Labour Government would have done it. That Government had a higher level, of child benefit by the time they went out of office than this Government have been able to sustain.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman is making his judgment about the right balance to pursue—

Mr. Ennals: Of course.

Mr. Newton: —in pursuing a policy as a whole. The Government's policies towards tax rates generally and the whole mix of benefits and taxation policy over the period,

have been influenced—I do not attempt to disguise this—by a recognition that the paramount need is to restore the strength and success of Britain's economy.
What is more, we are beginning to see some signs of success. The reduction in interest rates and some of the other things we have seen recently are considerable tributes to the firmness of purpose shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in some of these matters over a long period.
No one can seriously suppose that the problems that underlie the concern that has been expressed in the Chamber today can be solved simply by shuffling about the social security budget or shuffling between the present tax rates and the social security budget. The only way to do enough for child support or the disabled or any of the other groups that we all care about is to generate additional resources in our economy. This is a matter of balance.
The Government have tried to strike a balance between the rates of social security benefit, child benefit and other benefits and the need to ensure that industry and the economy can generate the additional resources. I believe that those policies are beginning to work. It is my certain conviction that only if they work shall we be able to meet the objectives that we all share. I hope that, on those grounds alone, my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in voting against the new clause.

5 pm

Mr. Rooker: The Minister has just made a speech which, in retrospect, I think that he will regret, because it could be held to undermine the whole concept of child benefit. He cannot say, on the one hand, that there is cross-party support for this benefit, for all the reasons that we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, and, on the other hand, talk about the economic circumstances. He cannot attempt to blackmail Conservative Members who might want to vote for the new clause by saying "The lawyers tell us that it might cost a little more than the Opposition said, because it might come into operation in April". If we intended it to apply from April—our intention was that it should apply from November—the Government would have no trouble in tabling an amendment in the other place and carrying it here. hope that any Conservative Members whose resolve was weakened by the Minister's words will bear that in mind.
I did not list the Minister in my opening statement because he was in the Whips' Office and therefore did not make any speeches since this Government came to power. I quoted from the pre-Budget memorandum of the Child Poverty Action Group, which dealt exclusively with speeches and statements that had been made in this Chamber by Conservative Members since the last election.
The Minister sought to rely on the statements of his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Industry, who was Secretary of State for Social Services at that time. I hope that the same reliance will be placed on the right hon. Member's words in the context of new clause 4 and new clause 13. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke, we knew that the Government's harshness would not be mellowed today when we saw the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). He has shown that there is steel inside the velvet, and he has made his views abundantly clear, but we knew


that there would be no concession, because we did not see the Secretary of State. He would have been here to claim all the credit. So we were under no illusions.
However, we want to put on record that the Government have been mean and harsh over child benefit. They have broken pledges, because the real value has not been maintained by this Government. It is not good enough to say "We made the pledge only in 1980". The Government won the election in May 1979. That is what we shall tie the Government to, and that is what, in the end, the public will tie the Government to.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 255.

[Division 95]
[5.5 pm]


AYES


Abse, Leo
English, Michael


Adams, Allen
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Alton, David
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, N.(H'gey, )
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Forrester, John


Beith, A.J.
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce


Bottomley, Peter ('W'wich W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn&amp;P)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Canavan, Dennis
Haynes, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.


Cartwright, John
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Homewood, William


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cox.T, (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Janner, Hon Greville


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Kerr, Russell


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilfedder, James A.


Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ronald


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
McCartney, Hugh


Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)





McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


McWilliam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole, )
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mantin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Spearing, Nigel


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morton, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Newens, Stanley
Tilley, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright. E.(Dearne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Park, George
Watkins, David


Parker, john
Weetch, Ken


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
White, Frank R.


Penhaligon, David
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Whitlock, William


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Race, Reg
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H(H'ton)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wright, Sheila


Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roper. John



Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ryman, John
Mr. James Tinn.


Sever. John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Banks, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, W.S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cockeram, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison Sir John
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, Sir Albert


Boyson Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount


Braine, Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian


Bright, Graham
Crouch, David


Brinton, Tim
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brotherton, Michael
Dover, Denshore


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Durant, Tony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dykes, Hugh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Buck, Antony
Eggar, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Elliott, Sir William


Bulmer, Esmond
Eyre, Reginald






Faith, Mrs Sheila
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray


Fell, Sir Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mellor, David


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


Gardner, Edward (SFylde)
Moore, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morgan, Geraint


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Good hew, Sir Victor
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gorst, John
Murphy, Christopher


Gow, Ian
Myles, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neale, Gerrard


Gray, Hamish
Needham, Richard


Griffiths, (Peter Portsm'th N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Hon A.
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Hannam, John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hawksley, Warren
Patten.Christopher(Bath)


Hayhoe, Barney
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Percival, Sirlan


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R.Bonner


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Pollock.Alexander


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, Jonn (Ravensbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


lrving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jopling Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Rippon.Rt Hon Geoffrey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rossi, Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Latham, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Loveridge, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Luce, Richard
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat.lain


Mc Crindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, lvor


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Major, John
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marlow, Antony
Stokes, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas.J.


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman





Temple-Morris, Peter
Waller, Gary


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, John


Thompson, Donald
Warren, Kenneth


Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Watson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John(bridlington)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wheeler, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Vaughan Dr Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George(acton)


Wakeham, John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, B. (Perth)
Mr. John Cope and


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Wall, Sir Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to check with you whether the difference between new clauses 4 and 13 is appreciated. The purpose of new clause 4 is to restore the value of short-term benefits to what they would have been if there had not been the 5 per cent. abatement. There is no issue about what the Government said at the time. The distinction between the two new clauses is that new clause 13 would add 5 per cent. to the reduced figure. There is clearly a one in 20 difference between the new clauses. I hope that the Chair will recognise the significance of the difference and allow the House to vote on both clauses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Member has raised a matter which has. been given careful consideration. We shall proceed to debate new clause 4 with which it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13, which has not been selected for a Division.

New Clause 4

INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

`The Secretary of State shall in preparing the increase in unemployment benefit in November 1982 include in it such sum as is necessary to make good the effect of section 1(1) and 1(2) (a) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 upon such benefit.'.—[Mr. John.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, with this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Unemployment benefit increases.

Mr. John: On this occasion I am on an easy wicket because I am given to understand, on no less an authority than the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, that provided I quote the words of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who is now Secretary of State for Industry but who was Secretary of State for Social Services, we shall all fall about in paroxysms of agreement.
The purpose of the new clause is to restore the 5 per cent. shortfall in unemployment benefit in lieu of taxation. The shortfall occurred because of the provisions in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. There are two main reasons why restoration should take place. First, we should prevent two Secretaries of State from being open to the charge of having misled the House. In Committee on 30


March the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, who was the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, said:
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about abated unemployment benefit. That will make no difference, because as the unemployment benefit comes into tax so the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement ends. It is an interim scheme in lieu of taxation. The one will give way to the other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 30 March 1980, c. 526]
There is a proposal to tax the benefit in July, and the effect of the Budget was not to restore the abatement. Therefore, the decision has been made by the Government to give the direct lie to what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion. If that is so, the House has been misled.
In 1981, the following year, in the course of discussing the Finance Bill, the present Secretary of State for Energy, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said, with the ebullience for which he is famous, that it would be all right and that no firm decision had been taken. He had softened it up considerably by that time. He said that it would not matter because the House would have an opportunity of discussing the issue upon the report on public expenditure, which would be produced to the House and debated in the House long before April 1982 when the decision fell to be made.
Whatever else has happened prior to the Budget and following the Budget, that has certainly not happened. If that is not remedied by the restoration of the abatement. I believe that the Secretary of State for Energy has also misled the House.
The new clause will also prevent the Prime Minister from being embarrassed. In answering a question on 16 March she said:
Final decisions on that matter have yet to be taken."—Official Report,  16 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 194.]
I do not know what more final decision one could have than a Budget that decides consciously not to restore the abatement. That is absolutely final and unless the House passes this new clause nothing can be done before the July date on which the matter comes before the House.
The Government will say that they will wait for the Finance Bill, but we all know what Governments and Finance Bills are about, and they will seize any opportunity tonight to wriggle out of an adverse vote in the hope that when the Finance Bill is being debated they can restore their shattered morale and cover up the speeches rather more successfully. But the Government, through the then Secretary of State for Social Service, are clearly and unambiguously on record as saying that when unemployment fell to be taxed that would mean the end of the reasoning for the abatement of 5 per cent. and it would be made good.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman made that statement in firm terms, but I take it that he has not overlooked the statement made by the then Secretary of State on Second Reading on 15 April 1980 when he said in clear terms that he could not "give a categorical assurance" that the abatement would be made good when these benefits were brought into taxation.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman can make his own judgment about this. I am talking about a specific statement that was made in Committee.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman remind my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr.

Hogg) that the statement that he read out earlier from the former Secretary of State was made after the statement to which he has just referred? I should have thought that in legal and other senses the second statement took precedence.

Mr. John: There is a maxim that, where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails, but second thoughts on this subject are obviously to be taken as the last guide given to the House. It was in unambiguous terms. Therefore, the Government's word has been pledged on the matter, and I believe that Conservative Members accepted it in that sense.
The second reason for restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement is that it is right that it should be restored, and I hope that I take the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) with me on that. First, the public were led to expect that and, secondly, if it is not done there is an element of a double penalty. The unemployed will have had the 5 per cent. abatement and now will have the abated amount taxed, so that in a real sense they will have paid, not in lieu of taxation but in addition to taxation, 5 per cent. of their income.
Third, although I concede that there is a difference between the Conservative and Labour Parties as to whether the present level of unemployment is necessary, there can be no difference between us about the fact that it is not the fault of the unemployed that they are unemployed. Therefore, they should not be penalised for something that is outside their control and they should not be treated unfairly at a time that is bound to be a grievious and harrowing experience. Those are the arguments for.
The two arguments that I anticipate the Minister, if he can bring himself to be this unkind, will advance, are, first, that this is an unsuitable vehicle for this reform. However, if one needs to go to hospital, one does not complain of driving in a Ford Popular merely because it is not a Rolls-Royce. This is a vehicle by which the reform can be carried out and it is the best vehicle that we have. We must anticipate the July deadline because the review promised is not good enough and this is the only sensible legislative agreement.
The expense is the second argument. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said that £50 million was a considerable sum, as has the present Secretary of State. I remind the House that the Government have said that the cost of restoring this abatement will be £20 million this year and £60 million in a full year. That has to be set against the background that the taxation of unemployment benefit is expected to yield £525 million in a full year. The abatement is peanuts compared to that.
I shall end by quoting to the House the words of that infallible gentleman, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, when discussing the Social Security (No. 2) Bill on 1 May 1980, which is even later than the quotation that I last made, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Grantham. He said:
However, the yield from proper taxation will be three times what will be saved by clause 1 … When the benefits come into tax, the revenue will be there."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,  1 May 1980; c. 1104.]
He was then making an argument that when taxation was imposed in full the Government would have the money to restore the abatement. The Minister of State should make good the Government's pledge and, if he does not, the House should impose it on the Government.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As some hon. Members may have seen, I am one of those who have put their names to new clause 13. Therefore, I approach the debate with considerable sympathy for the Opposition's view and for the view of my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Patten) and Chippenham (Mr. Needham).

Mr. Chris Patten: Why not name the rest?

Mr. Hogg: It would be far too complicated because there are many right hon. and hon. Members who take this view.
The arguments are very powerful. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) stressed that the position of the unemployed was not an enviable one and that their standards of living, whether measured in absolute, real or relative terms, had fallen over the past months. I agree; there is a powerful case to be made for uprating the value of the unemployment benefit.
If one were to do this, the obvious and logical way that the House would wish to do so would be by making good the 5 per cent. abatement. There is no doubt that many hon. Members, and many people outside the House, believed that when unemployment benefit was brought into taxation, as is now the case, the abatement would be made good. Therefore, one approaches this issue with considerable caution. At the same time, one is entitled to have a view and a regard to the Government's broad monetary and financial strategy. The question is whether the Government's attitude now is manifestly inconsistent with what they have said in the past.
If I were satisfied that my right hon. and hon. Friends speaking from the Front Bench had, in 1980 or any other time prior to today, given an unqualified statement to the effect that the abatement would be made good, I would have supported new clause 4.

Mr. Chris Patten: At this point of his argument could my hon. Friend define for the benefit of hon. Members, so that we can follow it more clearly, the words "interim" and "temporary"?

Mr. Hogg: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath is referring to a question by a Labour Member and an answer by the Under-Secretary in reply to it. Clearly, the then Under-Secretary used the phrase "an interim measure". There is no doubt that during the Standing Committee procedure the then Secretary of State said that the abatement would be a temporary one. That was in reply to a very convoluted and complicated question proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench. I do not think that that statement by the then Secretary of State has an unqualified meaning because it was a response to a particular question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to the hon. Member for Perry Barr.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I accept that there is some force in his argument. In cross-party debates in the Chamber and in Committee, when Ministers are under pressure, we should believe what we are told in reply to questions. However, it was not as simple and straightforward as the hon.

Gentleman suggested. The Department of Health and Social Security press release dated 28 March 1980, the day the Social Security (No. 2) Bill was published, stated:
and is an interim measure in lieu of taxation".
That phrase became part of the terminology used by Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman said that an unqualified commitment by a Minister would have had some force. I give him date, time, place and Minister. On 9 February 1982 the Minister for Social Security said
The abatement will be restored as soon as the benefits are brought into taxation. That undertaking is unqualified."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 9 February 1982, c. 422]
That was said in reply to my question about injury benefit, which was also covered by the 5 per cent. The Minister nods his head. He said that the abatement would be restored as soon as the benefits were brought into taxation. If that is good enough for injury benefit, why not for unemployment benefit?

Mr. Hogg: I am prepared to accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but the reply was confined to the specific question put to my hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment, I have never been so popular. I am delighted that this should be the case but before giving way I should like to develop my argument.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way on this specific point?

Mr. Hogg: On this point, yes. I am a patient man.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as are many hon. Members. On 15 April my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State, said that
there are the benefits that ought to be taxed but are not. We propose that pending the introduction of proper taxation it would be right to go for an interim scheme providing for a limited uprating … next November."—[Official Report,  15 April 1981; Vol. 982, c. 1034.]
That led many of my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the interim scheme. We knew that giving up a small amount of social security in lieu of a larger amount of taxation that would be put right when the position was reversed, and that a large amount of taxation would come in for a small amount of relief, putting back the 5 per cent.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for that intervention. There is no doubt—

Mr. Richard Needham: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I have given way three times in three minutes. I shall give way in a moment.
There is no doubt that many hon. Members, and people outside the House, believed that the abatement would be made good when unemployment benefit was brought into taxation. There is also no doubt that Ministers, have made statements that gave colour to that belief. However, the House must refer to what was said on Second Reading. If one seeks to define the Government's intention one must refer to the Second Reading.

Mr. Needham: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment. I shall give way to as many hon. Members as I can, but I intend to make my point first.
In order to determine and identify the Government's intention one must refer to what was said in reply to carefully considered questions on Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."' Hon. Members say "rubbish", but that is the purpose of a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Rubbish.

Mr. Hogg: Second Reading gives the Government, the Opposition, and even—

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will have to sit down because I do not intend to give way.
Second Reading enables the Government to state their policy. My right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State, was asked whether he could give an unqualified assurance that the abatement would be made good. On two separate occasions during his Second Reading speech, in columns 1038 and 1041, he said in clear and unequivocal language that he could give no such assurance.

Mr. Needham: I can understand that the question that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may have been convoluted. That would not surprise me. The important issue is the answer that later came forward in Committee on 30 April when my right hon. Friend stated that
as the unemployment benefit comes into tax so the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement ends. It is an interim scheme in lieu of taxation. One will give way to the other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,  30 April 1980, c. 526.]
My hon. Friend cannot wriggle out of this any longer. He has done well. Is it not time that he now sat down and gave in?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend does me an injustice if he thinks for a moment, that I had not taken account of that point. I was aware of what the then Secretary of State said. I turned therefore to the debates in the other place. I turned to 2 June 1980—later, of course, than the Standing Committee proceedings to which my hon. Friend has just drawn attention. On that occasion my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young made absolutely clear in column 1190 that no assurances could be given concerning the making good of the 5 per cent. abatement when the benefits were brought into tax.
I am extremely sorry that the Government are not responding to the request made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by Opposition Members to restore the 5 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "And by you."] And me. The question is whether my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against their party on this issue. Opposition Members may laugh but my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider this question. If my right hon. and hon. Friends had been deceived by the Front Bench of our party, they would be entitled to vote against the Front Bench of our party. But any fair minded hon. Members will say, without qualification or hesitation, not to say deviation, that the Government did not mislead the House.
I approached the matter with great caution because I was afraid that the Government had misled the House. They had not. Any fair reading of the Second Reading

debate makes that clear. That being so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who take a contrary view will not push their view to a Division.

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that any hon. Member, seeing the name of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) attached to new clause 13, could have expected the sort of speech that we have just had to put up with. The hon. Gentleman began like an overgrown schoolboy. The theory that he enunciated was absolute nonsense. If he says that the only time that we are to take Ministers seriously is during Second Readings and not at any other time—when they make statements in the House or when they are directly questioned in Standing Committee and give the sort of absolute assurance that the Minister of State gave and does not deny that he gave—this turns our parliamentary proceedings into sheer nonsense. It means that we place no credence whatever on assurances that are given and recorded in Hansard. We have three clear examples of what was the intention, not only of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) but also of the Minister of State himself.
I believe that this reflects the attitude of mind of the Front Bench and many Conservative Members towards the unemployed. I exonerate the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and I congratulate those who have tabled new clause 13. I hope that every one of them, except the hon. and learned Member for Grantham who says that his greatest loyalty is not to what he believes in—[Interruption.] Is he not learned? He is trying to be learned. The rate he is going he never will be learned.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that I am not learned.

Mr. Ennals: I am relieved. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not as relieved as the courts."' This is a serious issue that we are debating. Many Conservative Members have shown a great deal of courage in standing up for their convictions. I hope and believe that most of them will demonstrate their conviction when they go into the Lobby.
We are faced with a massive unemployment problem. We know from the Chancellor that the figure will go on increasing. The problem of unemployment seems to be relentless. It is enough for a man, or a woman, or a youngster to be unemployed, without forcing them lower and lower into poverty. We know perfectly well that for a person to be unemployed creates not only a great loss of personal dignity, but creates problems within the family and uncertainties about the whole future. It is a waste of skill and experience. On top of that, to push people deeper and deeper into poverty is intolerable. Of course, the situation might be worse had it not been for the pressure of Conservative Members. It might have been that the unemployed would have suffered a 7 per cent. increase instead of a 9 per cent. increase. We must be grateful for small mercies.
Short term benefits will come within the range of taxation in 14 weeks from now and it is sheer cruelty to unemployed people and their families not to restore the 5 per cent. cut made in the Social Security Act (No. 2) 1980. In addition, there is the squeeze on the child allowance that is paid to the unemployed. If we add that on to the fact that earnings-related supplement has ended—in itself a betrayal of an entitlement—when it was at an average rate of £8 per week for six months, an unemployed man with


a wife and two children will get £52·75. If that had kept pace with inflation, the figure would have been £58·35. That means a loss of £5·60. Many people may say that £5·60 is not much, but it is a great deal if one is unemployed, with the rising costs of fuel prices and the certainty of rising food prices. It is creating great hardship, which every one of us must know about from our constituency advice bureaux. To be unemployed is a bitter blow indeed. However, to force those who suffer that blow to suffer a second blow of intolerable poverty is one that no Government who actually care for the welfare of this massive number of unemployed people could be expected to be forgiven for. The Government will not be forgiven, let alone forgotten, if the amendment is not carried or if it is not dealt with in the Finance Bill.
We know that the funds are available. There is no point in the Minister saying that he has not got the money. Those on the higher earnings list have had great benefit from the Budget. A small proportion of that benefit should be given to the unemployed. That is only fair in a system in which the unemployed are being pushed down and the rich are being pushed up. Surely, in the name of social justice, that action should be taken. I hope that the new clause will be carried. In addition, I welcome the initiative taken in new clause 13, which may be slightly different, but the principle is the same.

Mr. Jim Lester: I shall speak briefly and seriously about a matter that is of great concern to most hon. Members. We approach the debate with a heavy heart. The fact that we have to debate this issue now is not of our making. However, given that it has arisen, we must express our views.
There is no denying the facts spelt out by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Perhaps the only difference between us is the order of seriousness in which we consider them. The first and most important point is that all hon. Members, as well as the public, recognise that unemployment is the major issue bothering us all. It is the top of every poll and is a matter of grave concern in every area. Given that unemployment is still rising by 30, 000 per month, we are debating a key issue. The Government must be seen to be fair. That is a virtue and not a fault and no matter where it is being considered the Government must be seen to be transparently fair in the way that they treat the unemployed.
Many of us believe that in principle it is right to tax short-term benefits. We have campaigned for that, as it helps the poverty trap and the "Why work" syndrome. However, if it is introduced with any suggestion of sleight of hand and of bad faith, the issue will be clouded from the beginning. When we try to explain a completely new approach to short-term benefits to confused and puzzled constituents, it will be difficult to get the principle accepted if there is even a hint of cheating.
Although we may read Hansard and quote each others' words in Committee, what do the words mean? What does "temporary", "provisional", "in lieu", or "interim" mean? According to the Queen's English they mean that the measure was temporary, interim, provisional and not permanent.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am the only hon. Member in the

House now who was present when a Labour Government temporarily imposed health charges? That was in 1947. They have been "temporary" ever since.

Mr. Lester: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I sat through the whole debate on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. As much as any hon. Member, I understand what we meant, said and tried to put over. The one proviso was that we could not look two years ahead and that we would consider the matter at the time that taxation was introduced and in the light of available resources.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends judge those resources to be available. If they are not there and the Government intend to maintain the abatement, they should say so clearly. Failing that, they must tell us how they will achieve what they have said they will do. If the Minister says that the new clause is not the right vehicle and that he can come along with something better, which contains the commitment to do what the Government said they would do, I shall reconsider the way in which I shall vote. This is, personally, a matter of principle and of conscience. I deeply regret to say that if we do not receive a satisfactory assurance, I shall vote in favour of the new clause.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall not repeat what has been said before in this debate and on previous occasions. I simply say this. The Government face today not just another of the very difficult choices that they have to make in the course of forming a Budget, but a decision about which, if they are to be true to the integrity of Government, there is really no choice. They must stand by the impression that they created in full knowledge of what they were doing when the abatement was introduced.
The integrity and morality of Government is far more important and far-reaching than almost any of the considerations that have been mentioned today. There is no more widespread or corrosive belief among my more cynical constituents than that in any battle with the individual the Government will always win in the end, and that they will get the individual both ways. That is the impression that would be left if the abatement were not removed when taxation was introduced. The firm impression will be left in the minds of most people that the Inland Revenue, the Government and the taxation system know no morality—they are simply out to get the individual whenever they can, and twice over if possible. The harm that that will do not just to this Government but to all Governments, to the ability of those employed in the Inland Revenue to do their job properly and to the confidence of our citizens in the system of Government will be very far-reaching indeed. If I showed the reports of any of these exchanges to my constituents, I am sure that they would be entirely convinced that the Government are committed by what they said before, and they would almost certainly describe the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) as a clear attempt to wriggle out of a commitment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I shall not give the hon. Gentleman any further opportunity to wriggle. He has made his capacity in that respect quite clear enough. He implied that a


Member should vote against his own Government only if they have systematically and deliberately misled him. In my view, Conservative Members would be quite right to vote today, not against their party but for the integrity of Government, and to stand by the commitments that the Government made a year ago.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I wish to comment first on the remarks of my close neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). If the idea that what the Minister said on Second Reading should be applied and anything that he said in Committee disregarded were adopted in court, litigants would save a great deal of money. I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend would accept for one moment that his first speech in court was all that mattered.
I have considered what was said in Committee. The whole idea of the Committee stage is to enable both sides of the House to persuade the Government to change their mind on various aspects of the Bill. Whatever reservation the previous Secretary of State announced on Second Reading was no doubt imposed upon him by the Treasury. He could not make a commitment, and that is understandable. Ministers do not make decisions of detail on Second Reading because there is time to do that later. He then moved from that position in Committee, and the present Secretary of State has now also come up against a Treasury veto.
The Budget has gone a long way in many regards to help the unemployed both through the general increase and the 2 per cent. concession, and we are grateful for that. There is time between now and later this year for my right hon. Friends to put right the little matter of the 5 per cent. This is important for the Government if on no other grounds then it is important to the Government on moral grounds, and it is certainly important to some Conservative Members on moral grounds. The 5 per cent. provision was made to assist the Government's plan to introduce taxation of unemployment benefit. Some Conservative Members might not have voted for that if they had been told that the 5 per cent. take-off was to be permanent and not just temporary, although I agree that taxation of unemployment benefit when other income is received during the year was an important step, and a right and proper step. I am not sure how much revenue it will bring in, but it will be quite considerable.
The Minister should tell the Treasury that the 5 per cent. should be put back because it will cost petty cash in terms of the total budget, and limited petty cash at that. It is not worth selling one's soul for a mess of potage. In moral terms, that is what the Government will do if they do not put this matter right.
I have no intention of voting with the Opposition. I shall abstain unless, as I hope, the Secretary of State and Treasury Ministers have regard to the pleas of Conservative Members. There is time to put the matter right in the Finance Bill. I hope that it will be put right. It will cost very little to do that, and the cost of not doing it would redound to the detriment of the Government and all of us.

Mr. Reg Race: I never thought that I would have reason to quote the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) in aid of an Opposition amendment to a social security Bill. If the hon. Member

for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) wants any further indication of the Government's intention on the matter, I refer him to the Second Reading debate on 15 April 1980, when the right hon. Member for Daventry said:
we have a rough and ready substitute to last until 1982, when we hope to bring in proper taxation."—[Official Report,  15 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1142.]
That is an unequivocal statement, as was the Secretary of State's statement in Committee. When the Committee sat all night, he wriggled a great deal in defending the Government's policy of cutting social security benefits to the unemployed and strikers, removing earnings-related supplement and all the rest of it in that horrible legislation.
It is disgraceful that the Government have not come forward with a scheme to reinstate the 5 per cent. cut if only in response to the recent revelations of the Institute of Fiscal Studies that during the two and a half years of office of the present Government the unemployed have been the group in society that has lost out most in relative terms. The graph in The Sunday Times,  the source of which was the figures of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, shows that the real standard of living of the unemployed has fallen sharply both in relation to that of other groups and in absolute terms.
The standard of living of the unemployed should be compared with the pay increases that have been awarded to those in higher income brackets, such as company directors. Those statistics were quoted by the IFS, not anyone else. The comparison between the two groups is shocking. I hope that Conservative Members will take note of that.
It is easy for Opposition Members to be critical about the way in which the Government are treating different sections of the population because the Government are treating the poor and the unemployed very badly. Now is the time for Conservative Members to do something about it. It is left once again to the Finance Bill, this may prove to be the last opportunity to do something about the problem as we do not know the composition of the Finance Bill Committee. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) has signalled his intentions so plainly that the Government Whips may not be too keen to put certain Conservative Members on the Committee.

Mr. John: Does my hon. Friend believe that it is technically possible for a Finance Bill concerned with taxation to deal with what is essentially a question of uprating? I do not believe that it is.

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is a lawyer; I am not. I take his advice on these matters. I am sure that he is right.
There have been several threatened revolts during the past two and a half years from the so-called "wets" in the Conservative Party about social security benefits. None has materialised. If they do not come into the Lobby and vote for the new clause, that will be yet further evidence that they do not mean what they say and do not really want to change the Government's policy. I would regret that because we have a first class opportunity to defeat the Government on an essential matter for the unemployed. I hope that they will take the opportunity of voting with us.

6 pm

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) did not do his case or our cause any justice. He is trying to make this a partisan matter, which it should not be. I sincerely hope that there will not be a Division.


When my hon. Friend comes to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he will repeat the pledges that have been given before and that he will give an assurance that will enable new cluase 4 to be withdrawn. We know that new clause 13, which we put down, will not be called. The House could then proceed to the next part of the debate. That would be the logical, proper and honourable outcome to the debate.
If I have to vote, I shall vote for new clause 4. I shall be voting not for the the Labour Party or for the Oppositon, but for my constituents. I shall be voting to uphold a clear commitment that I believe the Government gave.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a telling point. He said that an impression had been given. That was the most accurate way of describing it. An impression was clearly given, sedulously fostered and at no time denied. The clear and unequivocal impression that was given to me, to my hon. Friends who signed new clause 13 and to many others throughout the House and the country was that when the new system came into operation—a system in which many of us believe strongly—the abatement would come to an end. That is beyond doubt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made an extremely silly speech. It was a clever lawyer's speech. The Second Reading speech to which he referred was in itself unexceptional. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said that at that stage he could not give an unequivocal undertaking—and nobody could quarrel with that—but from then onwards it has been clearly put about that when 1982 came things would be put right. The one good thing that the hon. Member for Wood Green did was to quote the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). The matter should be put right and it should be done without the need for a Division.
The Government are not being fair if they put us in the position of having to vote against them. We do not wish to vote against them. We are grateful for the real and proper consideration given to many disadvantaged sections of the community in the Budget. To put us in the position of having to vote against our own Government, who have done so much that is good, merely because there is an abandonment of a clearly given undertaking, would be the most ridiculous and appalling thing for them to do. I beg of my hon. Friend to call the Division off. If he calls for a Division, he can rely on seeing me in the other lobby.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is clear that the debate is concerned with the integrity of the House of Commons. It is not a question of the specific words that were used by Ministers in the past; it is the clear impression that was created in the House of Commons, particularly in Committee.
There was a great deal of concern on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill in 1980 about the problems that were going to face the unemployed. We explored at considerable length the implications for the unemployed of the loss of earnings-related benefit. We went on to explore at considerable length the implications of the 5 per cent. cut in lieu of tax and to show how that was unfair to some people who, because they would be on benefit for most of the year, would not have had to pay tax on that income if it had been arrived at in other ways.
Because of the clear implications by Ministers in statements made both on the Floor of the House and in Committee we spent very little time on what would happen

if the 5 per cent. cut and taxation were applied at the same time and on the double unfairness that would result. We were under the impression that when the proper taxation was implemented, the majority of people who would not have to pay tax on that level of income would be released from the 5 per cent. imposition and that certainly those who had the 5 per cent. cut imposed on them would not suffer because of taxation.
That was clear at that time. If hon. Members study the proceedings in Committee, they will see that we spent no time going into what would happen if both impositions were made, because hon. Members were clear that that was not the Government's intention at that time. Had we believed that that was not so, we would have spent time in Committee showing the unfairness of the double imposition of the 5 per cent. cut in lieu of taxation and taxation on top of that.
We have been told that the Government are to get a considerable amount of money as a result of taxing people who are unemployed for relatively short periods during the year and that there ought to be sufficient money to pay back those people who need the 5 per cent. In the first year the amount is estimated to be £20 million and in a full year £60 million. I am not sure whether that is net or gross. A considerable number of people who suffered the 5 per cent. cut had to have their unemployment benefit made up by supplementary benefit. Not only would the new clause give people justice; it would help to simplify the benefit system. We are trying to ensure that more people get unemployment benefit which is sufficient for them to survive without forcing them to claim extra from supplementary benefit.
There is a strong case to support the integrity of the House of Commons. Statements and promises made to the House should be fulfilled. There is also a question of simple justice. Finally, there is the administrative advantage of giving people unemployment benefit rather than insisting that they draw unemployment benefit from one office and have it topped up with supplementary benefit from another office.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause or find some way of carrying out this policy by July.

Mr. Chris Patten: Like some of my hon. Friends, I was a little surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), particularly as he had put his name to new clause 13. However, I admired his professional qualities. If one had a really bad case—say, one had had too much to drink and had driven into the chief constable's wife's car—then my hon. Friend, even though he is not learned yet, would be a person to whom one would readily turn.
I deplore the suggestion that has been made, as political scientists say about the Cabinet, on the fringes of this debate, that those of us who take the view that we do are acting in a way to embarrass the Government and to make life politically difficult for them.
We have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in May 1981 that
the decision, of course, will be made clear and announced publicly well before April 1982, when taxation of benefits under the clause comes into effect."—[Official Report,  11 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 513.]
I do not think 10 days or a fortnight, even in my right hon. Friend's case, could be described as "well before".
If there is any difficulty or embarrassment, it is of the Government's own making. It will also be


because—although I hope it will prove not to be the case when my hon. Friend winds up the debate—they are considering breaking not only their word, but the word that I gave on their behalf in letters to my constituents. My right hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench may be prepared to break their word on this matter, but I am disinclined to break mine.
Few issues in politics are clear and simple. This issue falls into that minority which are crystal clear and childishly simple. We have discussed the matter at some length this evening. The unemployment benefit was cut by 5 per cent. in November 1980 in lieu—as the phrase goes, and it runs through the discussion like a thread—of taxation.
There is no shortage of quotations making that point. I have two pages of them, and I could read them all, working out how they were timed in relation to what was said on Second Reading. If the only pledges that mattered in politics were those made by Ministers on Second Reading, a number of expressions—such as "8·4 per cent." and the devaluation pledge—which have dominated political discussion in the past few years would not have had a place in the hustings. Therefore, I find that argument about the Second Reading pledge and the distinction between it and other political language rather curious.
To me, "interim" and "temporary" mean, as they do to my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), interim and temporary. If words mean anything at all, we know exactly what should happen now. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and others have quoted the remark of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State:
as the unemployment benefit comes into tax so the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement ends. It is an interim scheme in lieu of taxation. The one will give way to the other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 30 March 1980, c. 526.]
What we want to see now is one giving way to the other, because unemployment benefit comes into taxation in July.
I am not sure what are the arguments against keeping our word on this issue. It cannot be anything to do with work incentives. As I have argued before, the question "Why work?" is hardly appropriate when there are 3 million people out of work.
When talking of the extension of the long-term supplementary benefit rates to people who were unemployed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security pointed out not long ago that the argument against that was one not of incentives but of cost. That argument presumably applies in this instance as well. Nor can the cost be relevant to the argument, since, as we know, it is one-seventh or one-eighth of the revenue that the Government will gain by taxing short-term benefits.
The arguments in favour of keeping our word are overwhelming. It is not only that one should keep one's word rather than break it. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Even if we had not made those commitments, it is clear that we should restore the 5 per cent. abatement. When we made the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit in 1980 my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench were not expecting—or, if they were, they were not telling us—that there would be 3 million unemployed. If it was right to talk about "in lieu of taxation" when there were many fewer

than 3 million unemployed, how much more important it is to talk about restoring that 5 per cent. cut when there are as many unemployed as there are today.
Some of my hon. Friends take the view that there is little that the Government can do about unemployment. They believe that the unemployed are the innocent casualties of the fight to abate inflation and to make British industry more competitive—leaner and fitter. Anybody who takes that view should feel all the more strongly that we should do everything we can afford to do to safeguard the position of those innocent casualties—for example, by restoring the 5 per cent. cut. We should also be considering matters such as the extension of the long-term supplementary benefit rate to the unemployed.
Unemployment will, alas, be with us for many years to come. I do not believe that there is nothing the Government can do about that. I take issue with both the Labour Party and its quondam colleagues in the Social Democratic Party about our ability to deal with that in two years, two months, two weeks or whatever the latest time scale is.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston said, unemployment is the most serious social, political and economic issue that the country faces, and it is not unrelated to some of the issues which are apparently causing some of my hon. Friends so much concern on the Home Office front. Those are exceptionally important issues related to unemployment.
We should act with at least the minimum of fairness towards the unemployed. The time to start doing that is tonight in the Lobby, if the Government oblige us to do so. I very much hope that they will not. I hope that they will make it clear this evening that they intend to keep their word and restore the 5 per cent. cut when unemployment benefit comes into tax.

Mr. Field: I thought that many hon. Members were unfair to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who I thought made an effective speech. He played the role of devil's advocate for the Government's argument rather well. By the end of his speech he had shown that the Government did not have a great deal to advance in their own defence.
The longer the hon. Gentleman went on, the more it seemed to me as though we were being taken back in time, listening to a learned medieval theologian. Then there were debates in which the most learned in our society tried to convince people that the world was flat. They were clever, and for a long time they won the argument. Then when they started to lose it they said that those who thought that the world was round did not have proper knowledge, and the knowledge that they had should be destroyed. Tonight we heard that when the argument begins to unravel it is not proper knowledge—it was not given in a Second Reading speech.
I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he has played the role of devil's advocate. I hope that he has convinced others, as well as himself, that supporting the clause in the Division Lobby is a very important action on behalf of us all.
I should like to pick up the theme of the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who in a short time put the whole issue clearly before us, showing how important the matter of unemployment is and pointing out the change that we are making. Some of us have long argued, outside the


House as well as inside, that if we are to make sense of our tax and social security system, if we are to create equity between one group and another, it is important that all forms of income come into tax. There may well be a debate between us on whether the starting point of tax is right now, but surely there is no dispute that all forms of income should be taxable. Only by bringing more income into tax shall we have the resources to raise the tax threshold, the starting point of tax.
If I had wanted to pursue a partisan point, which I do not, I should have gone on to say how inconsistent it was of the Government, when they were making the right step of bringing some benefit income into tax, also to start exempting income, such as the mobility allowance, from' tax. We should be in favour of exempting the poor from tax, of raising the tax threshold substantially, but we will have the resources to do so only if all income, from whatever source, is taxable.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Beeston is right when he says that we are making a very important change. It looks to many of us as though the Government are bringing certain income into tax by sleight of hand and of cutting the level of benefits to the unemployed. If that is so, we shall have a much more difficult task in selling this necessary reform—of making income taxable—which should be supported on both sides of the House.
My second point is about the standard of living of the unemployed. The Prime Minister has changed her position on this matter. I do not want to be unfair to her. It may he that as time has gone on she has thought more carefully about what she hopes to do with her economic policy. Now she talks as though it is necessary to increase the conscript army of the unemployed to fight inflation. Only by increasing the numbers out of work can one ever hope to bring down the rate of price increases. Therefore, even on her terms it is immensely important that we as a House of Commons consider regularly what standard of living we are offering to those who are bearing our unemployment.
I do not want to make a long statistical speech about living standards and how they have changed over 10 years or over two years. All I want to say is how it strikes me when I visit unemployed constituents: the embarrassment on their part, when it should be on my part, that they do not have a fire, and that inevitable apology "We don't put the fire on yet, sorry if you're cold"; the real generosity of tea and biscuits offered because that tea and those biscuits are meant for other members of the family. We are talking about people whose living standard is at the very bottom of our society.
If Governments want to cut the living standards of the conscript army that is fighting unemployment, then they ought to do so openly and honestly and not by sleight of hand. If they try to do that I do not think they will gain the support of the House of Commons.
For that reason and for the reason that the hon. Member for Beeston put forward—that we are putting forward tonight a very important change in our fiscal and social policies, the taxation of short-term benefits—we ought not to muddy the waters; we ought to be clear. I hope that a large number Tory Members will come into the Lobby in support of new clause 4, not to vote with the Labour Party or to have a kick at their own Government, but because they believe that that is the right thing to do for their constituents and for the country. I hope that when our

positions are reversed that sort of message will go out to us and that we, on the other side of the Chamber will respond in a similar way.
Last but not least, I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham, who convinced me that the Government had no case for opposing new clause 4, will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Needham: I have real sympathy for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this evening because they are in the position of two members of a new football team after the manager has decided to change the team around but, unfortunately, they are playing the old ball in front of the old crowd. Most of us here realise what has gone on in the past and are concerned about it. There are two points to make. One concerns the Government's credibility. They have been assisted in that tonight by the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The other point concerns costs.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about credibility and the way that ordinary members of the public look at the Government's actions and the way they behave. It was a perfectly valid point because the intention of what the Government said three years ago is absolutely clear. The Government's intention was the correct one, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has said. Of course it was the right intention. Of course the word "interim" and all these other words that were used were the right words to use, because it was absolutely correct to bring benefit into taxation. Having done that, it was absolutely right to make sure that some of the money saved was then put back into benefit. That is what ordinary people up and down the country believed would happen, not in any great detail because most ordinary members of the public pay into the national insurance fund, and they do so in the belief, understandably, that they are paying into an insurance fund that will be of assistance to them if, unfortunately for them, disaster befalls them, very much in the same way as many people do through private insurance companies. One would expect that, when the Government tell them what they intend to do, in the same way as insurance companies make proposals, they would abide by their proposals. It would be a natural, normal thing for most people to believe.
Yet if the Government now go back on their original intention, and let us put it as mildly as that, it will undermine to a very large extent the trust and confidence that people have in them. That is behaviour that the people of this country lay at the feet of politicians remorselessly and endlessly. It is really not for us in Parliament to allow that to happen. Whatever the strength of reason that there may be for such behaviour, I believe that it is wrong.
Having tried to deal with the question of intention and credibility, let us just for a second consider the question of cost. The money that is paid in unemployment benefit comes out of the national insurance fund. The national insurance fund, as this House is bored with hearing me tell it, has for a variety of reasons risen considerably over the last few years. It now stands at about £5 billion. It may go down a little this year. Nevertheless, there is a large and substantial amount of money in the national insurance fund that is capable of being paid out to those who should rightly be able to claim unemployment benefit.
One Labour Member made a fair point when he said that if this benefit is reduced it will force many people who have sufficient to get by on with unemployment benefit to


go on to short-term supplementary benefit rates. So, such assistance comes out of the Government's pocket in any case. The cost of this measure—there is some argument about it; it is extremely difficult to work out the figures—appears to be about £60 million from the national insurance fund, which is standing in surplus to the tune of £5 billion. The additional money—as we have already argued—that will come in in the form of taxation in a full year is £525 million. Is it really reasonable for those of us who believe in the concept of one nation, and helping people who cannot help themselves, not to make sure that the unemployed are protected in this way? It might be argued that if £525 million has been taken out of their pocket we are not being terribly fair by offering only to put £40 million back. Maybe we are not going far enough on this issue.
There are not that many people who make the cause of the unemployed their main cause in life. Most other people on supplementary benefits have strong pressure groups to represent them. But the long-term unemployed, the unemployed generally, do not have any great assistance.
It is worth commending to the Minister something that the Policy Studies Institute said recently:
For the great majority of the unemployed, their weekly benefits are much lower than their previous earnings, and much lower than the earnings they might expect to get from a new job … Not surprisingly the main difficulties experienced by the unemployed are financial ones, and in a significant minority of cases these difficulties can lead to acute deprivation.
If people lose their work, and from an average wage of £145 a week gross they come down to £52—which is what they would get in unemployment benefit—they still have their mortgage, their hire purchase commitments, their objectives and ambitions in life. All of these have been crushed by the loss of their job. Is it really right to remove a further 5 per cent? I just cannot believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends really intend to do this. It amounts to one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the employee's contribution. I would submit that the money is there in the national insurance fund. The intention has been laid before Parliament by the Government. I ask my hon. Friend to say tonight that he will give us this commitment, for the sake not only of his Government but for the sake of the Tory Party, which needs to be able to show that it does care about such a problem. It needs to show that it is intent and determined to do something about it and will not just cast these people on to the scrapheap, where they do not deserve to be.

Mr. Keith Best: It is highly regrettable that we must have this debate tonight, because after a successful Budget which was drafted extremely cleverly politically—probably the first Budget since the Government came to office by which the unemployed did not have something taken away from them—we should not have to argue about a 5 per cent. shortfall.
It is also regrettable because of the money involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) said that it would cost about £60 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security when he replies will tell us the actual figure. I hope that he will refer to a written answer that I received on 9 March which said that the cost of making good a 2 per cent. shortfall is £15 million and the cost of making good a 7 per cent. shortfall, which includes the 2 per cent., is £60 million. Although

I was not good at mathematics at school—I must confess that I failed my additional mathematics O-level—I calculate that it would require £45 million to make good the 5 per cent. shortfall.
Whenever one hears the gentle and persuasive tones of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) coaxing us into the Opposition Lobby, it is tempting to respond until one hears the pontifications of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), who tries to turn debates into party political slanging matches and offends Conservative Members so much that he slams the door of his Lobby in our faces. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was much more persuasive in coaxing me into the Opposition Lobby tonight. When he started to speak I contemplated how regrettable it would be if I ever found myself representing a party in a court case against him. However, as his speech progressed, I came to the considered view that the one person that I would not wish to be in such a trial was the judge.
I know that the Minister will have taken note of the fact that no Conservative Member has spoken in favour of what the Government propose to do, or wishes my hon. Friend to make the commitment that the 5 per cent. shortfall will be made good. It is a little unfair for hon. Members to try to paint it as a sleight of hand by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services. Although my hon. Friends have been extremely fair, I suspect that we shall hear a speech in a moment from a Labour Member which may paint it as a sleight of hand.

Mr. Chris Patten: If there is any sleight of hand—no one has yet made that point—it is on the part not of those who made the commitment but of those who do not carry out the commitment. We have not yet had the sleight of hand and we are all hoping that we do not get it. We assume that we need not vote in the Opposition Lobby because of what the Minister will say in reply.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification. May I also deal with the point that he directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, because he entered into an argument about which statement came first. Several hon. Members have quoted the statement made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in Committee as reported at column 526 of Hansard on 30 April 1980. I do not know at what time of the small hours of the morning that statement was made. I suspect that it has been bitterly regretted ever since. However, if one considers whether other statements came before or after that statement, in fairness one should refer to the Report stage of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 on 21 May 1980, when my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State said:
We have given the undertaking, subject to availability of resources, to restore the invalidity benefit to the level which would have obtained without abatement".
He also said:
The Government are not in a position, in relation to other benefits covered by the clause, to give a comparable undertaking. I must make it clear that the decision will be faced at the time as to what would be the appropriate level of those benefits when they are brought into taxation.
A little further on, he qualified that by saying:
It is a matter for judgment at the time, in relation to available resources, the general level of earnings, what the country can afford, the borrowing requirement and all the other factors as to what is the appropriate level when these benefits come into taxation. I can add to the pledge that I gave about invalidity benefit."—[Official Report,  21 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 555–56.]


It is fair to consider what my right hon. Friend said on Report, which was after what he said in Committee on 30 April.
I sincerely hope that the Government will make good the 5 per cent. shortfall. If that statement on Report is taken literally, I do not believe that they are obliged to make it good tonight. It seems that some of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members have been determined to take certain statements absolutely literally. It means that the benefits must be considered when they come into tax.
The 5 per cent. shortfall must be made good, because there is a clear implication, if not an unequivocal statement, to the effect that when those benefits come into tax the 5 per cent. abatement will be made good. It is especially important, in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s and when we have more people unemployed than at any time since then, that we—the Government—should show that we are only too aware of the needs of those people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find employment. It must be a superlative duty of the House and the Government to ensure that the people in the greatest need are succoured.
Although I shall support the Government tonight, I hope that I do so in the knowledge that what has been said will come true—that the matter will be reviewed fully when the taxation of the benefits comes into effect. I hope also that we shall have a clear statement that the abatement will be made good.

Mr. Chris Patten: Why should we take one or two statements by Ministers as being operative but rather more statements by Ministers as being inoperative? I do not follow that.

Mr. Best: That is a slight injustice, because one must examine the totality of the case. It is unfair in certain circumstances to quote people out of context. On what I have just read out to the House, from the debate on Report, it would be wrong to accuse my hon. Friend now of not carrying out a commitment. Nevertheless, I urge it upon my hon. Friend the Minister that whatever commitment may or may not have been given, the clear implication was that the 5 per cent. shortfall would be made good. I hope that, certainly before the end of this Parliament, I shall see the Conservative Government make their position towards the unemployed unequivocally clear in a supportive role, and that they will ensure that the abatement is made good.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I know that the House wishes to proceed to a decision, so I shall be brief. I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, but I was called out by visitors to the Central Lobby. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wishes now to reply to the serious and fervent pleas that have been made and, we hope and assume from the strength of the arguments put forward in this brief debate, agree with what has been suggested.
This is one of the most important occasions that the House has faced for some time, even including the recent Budget. It behoves us all to do a number of things that resolve themselves into a central moral issue. I am not at all happy with the idea, even if it is not the Government's intention, continually to give the impression that we are giving the unemployed a hard and bad time. That is serious, particularly for the Government, but also for the Opposition.
We must always reflect on just how low unemployment benefit is and just what a nightmare it is for people to manage on those figures, even allowing for last week's increase. Governments must reassure the public that they keep their commitments and pledges. This is not a literal concession, in view of the nature of the pledge, but a concession in practical terms, which would be welcome and perfectly manageable in financial and economic terms. It is a very small amount of money—£40 million—bearing in mind that a gross amount of up to £3¾ billion was given in last week's Budget. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will listen seriously to the arguments put forward and give the pledge that we now want.

Mr. Rossi: The House has shown a deep concern for the position of unemployed and I have listened carefully to all representations made from both sides of the House. However, before dealing with those matters, I should deal with the considerable part of the debate taken up by the statement, oft quoted, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in Standing Committee B on 30 April 1980. When quoting that, my hon. Friends made it clear that they regarded any change from what it stated as calling in question the Government integrity. I regard that as extremely serious and, therefore, shall spend a little time on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said that the impression was clearly given, fostered and never denied. There was, he said a clearly given undertaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) stated that he always had the clear understanding that the abatement was temporary and told his constituents that it would be restored. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) stated that the Government had to be seen to be fair and that this was a matter for conscience. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) said that the Government's credibility was being called into question. These are all serious matters. I took it up with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. Clearly, if he misinformed the House or a Committee, that matter must be taken into account.
Whatever may be said politically about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford, nobody would deny that he is a man of the utmost integrity and honour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath would be one of the first to confirm that. 1 shall deal with the record in a moment, but I noted what my right hon. Friend said to me:
Nobody who followed the whole debate could have any doubt as to what my line was. The quotation is taken out of context and, out of context, could bear the connotation placed upon it. But in the context of the debate as a whole, no one could have been misled.
I anticipated, no matter what reputation my right hon. Friend had for honesty and integrity, that a statement of that sort would be met immediately by remarks from Members of the Opposition from sedentary positions to the effect that he was "wriggling". Therefore, because I was not present during that debate, I took the trouble to Look at the record to see the context of his remarks in the debate as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) mentioned the time of evening that this matter may have been discussed. First, I draw the attention of the House to the proceedings in Standing Committee B, c. 393 when the question of abatement and its restoration was specifically


before the Committee. The minds of all Members of the Committee were directed to that proposition, as was that of my right hon. Friend. It was certainly not directed at any other proposition. That is an important aspect.
I shall quote my right hon. Friend's remarks at length because of all that has passed this afternoon. He said:
The hon. Gentleman also asked—as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—a question related to taxation, namely 'When the benefits are brought into tax, what will be the commitment about restoring the value?' I referred briefly to that matter on the Floor of the House this afternoon. It may be helpful to the Committee if I put on the record a slightly fuller statement, because I know that it concerns many bodies outside the House which have been taking an interest in the Bill.
I give the assurance that invalidity benefit, unlike the other benefits affected by clause 1 this November, is regarded by the Government as a long-term benefit. Let there be no mistake about that. It is not a short-term benefit. It is paid currently at the same rate as a retirement pension and for many people who are chronically sick it fulfils the same long-term role as that pension. The only difference is that it is not at present within the ambit of taxation. It is not treated as part of taxable income. Consequently, while we must still consider all the relevant factors at the time when each benefit comes into tax—and they may not all come into tax at the same time; I shall say something about that in a moment—I can give a particular, special assurance with regard to invalidity benefit. When it comes into tax, subject to the availability of resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
One has to use those words. Every Government has to have that caveat. When it comes into tax, and subject to the availability of resources, we shall put back invalidity benefit to what it would have been if it had stayed in step with the retirement pension this November.
For the other benefits affected, which are quite different, I cannot at this stage go beyond the more general assurances I have given that we shall consider what should be their gross rates in light of economic and other circumstances prevailing at the time that each of them comes into tax."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,  30 April 1980, c. 393.]
6.45 pm
That was the definitive explanation given by my right hon. Friend in answer to a specific question put to him and, incidentally, that was at about 7 o'clock in the evening. At about 1.30 am there was a protracted discussion on how taxation of these benefits should be dealt with.

Mr. Needham: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). However, if it was not my right hon. Friend's intention to do this, why on earth was he cutting the 5 per cent. in the first place? Why did he do that?

Mr. Rossi: My right hon. Friend spelt that out on Second Reading. It was to make public expenditure savings. He spelt that out clearly. There were references to taxation and the interim, but my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that this was a public expenditure saving forced on the Government at that time.
I have already sought to outline the clear explanation given by my right hon. Friend about the timing and considerations that would be taken into account as and when unemployment benefit was brought into tax, or when these abatements would be restored. He made a complete distinction between the long-term benefits and the short-term benefits. When there was a debate later about the method of taxation, the incidence of taxation, and whether taxation would allow the income to fall below supplementary benefit level, my right hon. Friend made

the statement that has been oft quoted today. Taken in the context of the debate as a whole, the quotation does not bear the connotation that is placed on it when it is taken out of context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey took the matter further. He looked at what was said on Report. One or two of my hon. Friends said that one relies on the later statement rather than the earlier statement. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath said that when someone raised the question of a Second Reading statement. My hon. Friend said that a statement made in Committee should have precedence because it was made later.
Here is a third statement, and it was made even later. I shall read it in full, because it involves questions of integrity. My right hon. Friend said:
No I cannot give way. I must finish and I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is waiting to speak. The benefits to which this section applies ought to be taxed and we cannot wait until 1982 or 1983 to secure the contribution from the social security budget towards the Government's overall spending objectives. I have been asked what I shall do when proper taxation applies. I have made it clear that, in relation to invalidity benefit to which hon. Members on both sides of the House—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—addressed themselves, we have given the undertaking, subject to availability of resources, to restore the invalidity benefit to the level which would have obtained without abatement.
That, since the benefit was introduced, has been equivalent to the retirement pension and I repeat that undertaking today. The reason why it is right to give that pledge on invalidity benefit is, as a number of my hon. Friends have made clear, that benefit is a long-term benefit. Since it was introduced more than 10 years ago invalidity benefit has, traditionally, maintained a parallel course with the level of the retirement pension. When it comes into taxation, subject to the availability of resources, we intend to restore that relationship.
The Government are not in a position, in relation to the other benefits covered by the clause, to give a comparable undertaking. I must make it clear that the decision will be faced at the time as to what would be the appropriate level of those benefits when they are brought into taxation."—[Official Report,  21 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 555–6.]
I suggest that that passage makes clear beyond peradventure the undertaking and pledge given by my right hon. Friend, both in Committee and on Report. It is not fair to question his integrity, or the integrity of other of my right hon. Friends, by taking the matter out of context.

Mr. Chris Patten: I want to make it clear, first, that no one is questioning the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). If we are talking about integrity, it is the Government's integrity that we are talking about. The Minister has not made clear why some statements are operative and others are inoperative. Secondly, in the statement that has been made several times today, it was made clear that when short-term benefits came into tax, the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement ended. What is the rationale now?

Mr. Rossi: First, in answer to my hon. Friend's question about which statements should have precedence over others, I shall repeat what I have been trying to explain and what I had thought that I had succeeded in explaining. In the context of the debate as a whole in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford made his position perfectly clear, and he repeated it on Report. What is at variance is one statement that he made in the early hours of the morning, when he was dealing with another matter, when he used words without adding a qualifying condition that he was careful to use on all other occasions. My hon. Friends can


make of that what they like, but in fairness to my right hon. Friend, I must say that he made his position perfectly clear.
Subsequently, the Government made their position clear. There have been a number of parliamentary questions. On 5 May 1981, and as recently as 22 December 1981, in answer to questions about the abatement, it was made quite clear that
The restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement of the other short-term national insurance benefits—including sickness and unemployment benefits—will be considered when those benefits are brought into tax in the light of the economic and other circumstances at the time.—[Official Report,  22 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 376.]
So all the way through, apart from that one occasion, the position was made quite clear by the Government.
I come now to the merits of the argument, having—I hope—disposed of an important matter involving questions of integrity and credibility. Opposition Members have said that the Government will receive £500 million revenue from taxing unemployment benefit, and that some of that money could be spent on restoring the 5 per cent. abatement. The point was made also by some of my hon. Friends. As the House knows, taxation is never hypothecated for any particular item of expenditure.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister switched it the other way.

Mr. Rossi: Restoring the abatement is something on which the money could be spent, just as the Exchequer meets the costs in my Department of the Health Service and other social security benefits. However, we must look at the matter in the context of the Budget as a whole. Over the next 12 months the Government will devote £32 billion to social security public expenditure. A substantial proportion—about 45 per cent.—of that expenditure, comes directly from the taxpayer, or from the supplement to the national insurance fund. Despite the size of that programme and the share that it absorbs of the public expenditure cake, we have been able to make some valuable improvements. I ask my hon. Friends to view this item within the context of the Budget as a whole and the social security programme as a whole.
On 10 March, my right hon. Friend made his statement on the social security uprating. The uprating, at November 1982, will cost about £3 billion in a full year. Of that, £1 billion will be met from the Consolidated Fund—that is, the taxpayer. Hon. Members will recall that, apart from basic price protection of benefits, we are making good the shortfall that appeared at the 1981 uprating for all benefits, giving for most people an 11 per cent. uprating. That means making good the shortfall, not only for retirement pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries, but for the unemployed and all those on supplementary benefit, as well as those receiving child benefits, mobility allowance, sickness benefit, injury benefit, and maternity allowance. This means an additional cost of £180 million in a full year.
Restoring the shortfall for all benefits will cost more than £500 million in a full year. Mobility allowance has not only received a substantial uprating at a cost of £22 million but has been brought out of tax. The improvements in that benefit make it easier for the disabled to lease cars through Motability and makes it easier for them to get about.
7 pm
We are increasing the heating additions generally. The therapeutic earnings limit has been raised. The earnings disregard for invalidity care allowance has been doubled. We have raised supplementary benefit capital disregards from £2, 000 to £2, 500. It is worth repeating that we have done a great deal. We have not been able to restore the abatement of unemployment benefit. Some might say that that is a small additional step but £60 million in a year is not a trivial amount to find. There are many improvements in social security that we would like to make that we have been unable to make. We have had to draw the line somewhere, and someone is always on the other side of it.
I have had given to me lists of items on which money could be spent—and most of them are very worthwhile. The Government have been pressed on the issue of the invalidity trap and we would like to sort that out. We would like to pay the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the unemployed, which would cost about £200 million. We would like to abolish the household duties test and to raise pensions even higher. The Government would like to do all these things. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and this year it has been drawn at £3 billion.
We would like to help additional classes, including the unemployed. The unemployed are receiving an 11 per cent. uprating which has to be paid for by the work force. Labour Members are suggesting a 16 per cent. uprating at a time when employed people are having to settle for much lower wage increases and are having to bear the cost of the benefit out of their wages. That must be considered.
My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have promised to keep this matter under review. We have said that the abatement will not be a permanent reduction. It is equally clear that the abatement cannot be made good now, but it will be made good. My right hon. Friends have the matter under review. At the right time it will be made good.

Mr. John: I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity, the starkness and the inhumanity with which he has put the case against the unemployed. Clearly the line has been drawn and the unemployed are outside it. We now know what to expect of the Government. That is why abstention is not good enough and why a positive vote to restore this iniquitous cut must be made.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intend to speak briefly and I shall take up only as much time as if I had spoken before my hon. Friend the Minister. I wanted to wait until he had spoken to hear what the Government were proposing.
The Government propose to delay. In the debate on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill two years ago, Conservative Members voted in the belief that, so long as economic circumstances permitted, the 5 per cent. would be restored. The qualifying words for invalidity benefit were "subject to available resources". The qualifying words for the short-term benefits were "economic and other circumstances". In effect, the words mean the same.
With £500 million coming in from those receiving short-term benefit, the 10 per cent.—which is the cost of restoring the 5 per cent.—should be restored. 'The issue must go to a vote. I wish to support the Government in every way that I can, but they should follow their supporters whom they led through the Lobby two years ago, and our job is to lead them this evening.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 248.

Division No. 96]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Adams, Allen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Ford, Ben


Alton, David
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N. (H'gey, )
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce


Barnett, Guy(Greerwich)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan


Beith, A.J.
Ginsburg, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, John


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John (Islington C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ian
Hicks, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Homewood, William


Cartwright, John
Hooley, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cohen, Stanley
Howells, Geraint


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cormack.Patrick
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Hon Greville


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Craigen, J.M. (G'gow, M'hill)
John, Brynmor


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Kerr, Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfedder, James A.


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Knox, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Leighton, Ronald


Deakins, Eric
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dormand, Jack
Litherland, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dubs, Alfred
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dunn, James A.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dunnett, Jack
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Dykes, Hugh
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, Kevin


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
McTaggart, Robert


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
McWilliam, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth


English, Michael
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (Newton)
Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)


Field, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Mikardo, lan
Silverman, Julius


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Squire, Robin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Morton, George
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stoddart, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stott, Roger


Needham, Richard
Straw, Jack


Newens, Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


O'Halloran, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tilley, John


Park, George
Tinn, James


Parker, John
Torney, Tom


Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Penhaligon, David
Watkins, David


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Weetch, Ken


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R.


Race, Reg
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Sheila


Ryman, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sever, John



Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Short, Mrs Renée
Mr. Hugh McCartney.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt. Hon.Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Churchill, W.S.


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Clarke, Kennett(Rushcliffe)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cockeram, Eric


Banks, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic(T'bay)
Corrie, John


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Hon Anthony
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Denshore


Blaker, Peter
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Body, Richard
Durant, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Elliott, Sir William


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Eyre, Reginald


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n, )
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Browne, John(Winchester)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Gare Wones, Tristan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan






Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Newton, Tony


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom


Greenway, Harry
Onslow, Cranley


Griffiths, E. (B 'y St. Edm 'ds)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hamilton, Hon A.
Parris, Matthew


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Sir Ian


Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Porter, Barry


Hawksley, Warren
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hayhoe, Barney
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Heddle, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hooson, Tom
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes James, Robert


lrving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rost, Peter


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, Willlam(Streatham)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sims, Roger


Lee, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Loverldge, John
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Luce, Richard
Sproat, lain


Lyell, Nicholas
Stainton, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, lvor


MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stevens, Martin


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Major, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marland, Paul
Stokes, John


Marlow, Antony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Tapsell, Peter


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Donald


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Mayhew, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Mills, lain(Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, B. (Perth)


Moore, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Morgan, Geraint
Wall, Sir Patrick


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Ward, John


Murphy, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Myles, David
Wells, John(Maidstone)





Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wickenden, Keith



Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY

Mr. John: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
`and a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that an employee is or has been incapable of work for any period shall, unless the employer proves otherwise, satisfy the employer as to such incapacity'.
Although it is difficult to know which of the words of any Minister we should accept and which we should not, this amendment arises from certain encouraging noises made by the Minister of State in Committee or 10 December 1981. The Opposition had moved an amendment suggesting that the production of a medical certificate for a person unfit for work should be conclusive evidence of such unfitness. One might have supposed that that was not an unreasonable supposition.
That seemed to offend the casuistical turn of mind of the Secretary of State and he said that, although he could not accept that, a slightly lesser standard of proof might find favour in his eyes. The opportunity of doing that is provided by this amendment and we shall be interested to see which of the many excuses from his Department the Minister trots out to deny yet another modification.
Before doing that, the Minister owes it to the House to tell us the present position on self-certification. That is clearly implicit. In the first seven days a person will be able to certify himself as unfit for work. The Minister of State will agree that some time has elapsed since rumblings of discontent became evident to the House. However, I understand that there is still a great deal of unhappiness about the proposal and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the present position.
The amendment seeks to add the words
and a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that an employee is or has been incapable of work for any period shall, unless the employer proves otherwise, satisfy the employer as to such incapacity.
That reverses the onus and provides that, with a duly authorised medical certificate, a person should have the presumption exercised in his favour. It will be for the employer to prove that his employee was fit for work before sickness pay can be denied.
We were all anxious in Committee—I am sure the Minister shared that anxiety—to minimise the possibility of friction and to avoid possible areas of dispute with a reluctant or, frankly, obstructive employer who denies sick pay to an employee. We want to remove as many grounds for that as possible for reasons of equity—which I hope the Government still understand—and because of the possible effect on industrial relations of widespread and prolonged denial of sick pay for spurious reasons. The medical certificate should be accepted unless there is good reason to the contrary.
There should be a strong presumption in favour of a person who is incapable of work and who has a medical certificate to prove it. The presumption is rebuttable, but there needs to be good reason. If a general practitioner


certifies that his patient is incapable of work, his clinical judgment should prevail against the employer who, even in the amended scheme, has some opportunity to be obstructive or awkward and denies his employee the simple justice for which the Bill provides of receiving sickness pay.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. On Second Reading, I suggested that there was a danger that the first part of the Bill could be seen as a 'flu spreaders' charter. Considerable pressure is applied to persuade people to go to work when they are not fit. There is a belief, almost ethnic, that it is a good thing to be at work. In reality it is often better for a person not to be at work. If one goes to work when ill, particularly with an illness such as 'flu, one is likely to spread that illness to other people. The long term effect is that more employees have to stay away from work.
In some instances, illnesses are passed on to customers in shops. One worrying aspect is the inconvenience caused to a small shopkeeper who employs only one or two people when one of his assistants telephones to say that he is unfit for work. It is likely that the employer will apply pressure and say "Of course you can get in." Once those attitudes develop, there is the danger that someone will be pressurised into turning up for work.
If it is possible for dispute to arise over whether the individual is sick, this gives the opportunity for the employer to press someone to turn up for work when he should not be there. This will not only put other employees at risk but if the individual works in a shop, particularly a food shop, the community at large will be put at risk. There should be a clear process by which the employee can satisfy the employer that he is unfit for work and entitled to draw benefit. The amendment suggests that a certificate from a doctor brought in by the individual will be accepted unless the employer can prove—the onus will be on the employer—that the individual is fit for work.
The Government have stated that they intend to introduce self-certification for illness. There are considerable attractions in self-certification provided that the Government issue clear rules ensuring that the employer accepts it. A situation must be avoided in which employers misguidedly bully individuals to turn up for work when they are clearly not fit for work and when their presence at work will not be in their own best interests or those of the community. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government intend to introduce simple, straightforward rules enabling the individual to qualify for benefit without getting into arguments with his employer about whether or not he is fit to turn up for work.

Mr. Rossi: I have been asked about self-certification. The Government intend to bring in self-certification from 14 June this year. That means that during the first seven days of absence from work through illness an employee will be able to sign his own certificate stating that he is away because he is indisposed. The form of the certificate is a matter to be agreed between the employer and the work force. We shall issue guidance and assist with specimen forms for those employers who require them.

Mr. John: I should like to know from the Minister whether a specimen form now exists. Will he confirm that there is a specimen form in existence that consists of four pages of questions?

Mr. Rossi: No. A specimen form, to the best of my knowledge, is not yet in production. I am not aware that any document comprising four pages is envisaged. The hon. Gentleman may have the advantage of me. I am not aware of a specimen form of four pages. The reason may be that such a form does not exist and is not contemplated. I do not know.
When the seven days are up, doctors can be approached for a medical certificate in the ordinary way. These will be issued free by doctors under the National Health Service as hitherto.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will not be surprised that I find myself unable to accept the amendment. It does not vary a great deal from the amendment that we considered in Committee. The arguments that I deployed against the amendment in Committee apply here. The amendment proposes that a certificate "shall … satisfy the employer". That is close to saying that it is conclusive proof. There is little difference between the two. If it "shall … satisfy the employer", it is presumably binding upon the employer. I am advised that is the effect of the wording.

Mr. John: I am a little unhappy about some of the advice that the Minister received if that is the case. There is the caveat
unless the employer proves otherwise.
The Minister and I know that there are circumstances in which the onus of proof is switched from the person seeking to prove the incapacity to the person who is trying to deny it. All the amendment does—clearly, unambiguously and in proper parliamentary form—is to switch that onus.

Mr. Rossi: The Government feel that the balance as between employer and employee is fairly maintained in the clause and that the amendment would put too much of a burden upon the employer. It would introduce a curious concept into law. We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall the argument that an opinion by a professional man shall be proof unless other proof is available. Perhaps I should explain what is meant by medical evidence provided by a general practitioner. It is not a certificate. In that sense, the amendment is technically defective, but I shall not make a great issue of that. It is a doctor's statement giving his opinion as to his patient's incapacity for work—that and no more.
The doctor can give his opinion only on the basis of the medical condition of his patient. He may not know the kind of job that his patient does. He may be accepting—this is not uncommon—the patient's story if it is a case of back-ache, for which there are no observable symptoms. One cannot really rely on a document of this kind, let alone raise it to the dignity of imposing a burden of proof.

Mr. John: With respect, the Minister is saying that one cannot believe a doctor's note because the doctor may not have been able to discern any physical symptoms in the patient. At least the doctor has medical training. He would be better able to tell whether a person whom he observes only by the eye is capable or incapable of work than would some person whose only qualification is that he has a higher national certificate in management studies.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous and is probably trying to lead me into making statements


that I shall later regret. He knows as well as I do that if someone presents himself in a doctor's surgery and says "I have been in bed with a back-ache for five days and have not been able to go to work; will you give me a certificate?", he will get it. There is no way in which the doctor is able medically to test the correctness of the statement made to him by the patient in those circumstances. Therefore, it would be wrong to insist in statute that such a document imposes a particular burden of proof upon one party or the other. It is for that reason that I invite the House to resist the amendment.
The Bill leaves the matter fairly balanced between the two parties concerned. It enables the employer to challenge a statement by an employee that he has been away sick if the nature of the circumstances, the time of the absence and the general character of the person concerned are such as to put doubt into the mind of the employer as to the truth of the employee's statement. An employer who knows his employee will take such matters into account. If the matter is not settled satisfactorily between the two parties, it can be dealt with by an independent adjudicating officer in the ordinary way.
I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. John: The Minister's reply must have been an education to Conservative Back Benchers. I should imagine that, unless they rebel or threaten to rebel, most of them regard themselves as aspiring Ministers. It must have been evident to them that the Minister is a master of the "come hither" technique in Committee proceedings. In Committee he says "I am with you in principle and I understand your problem, but just soften the amendment a bit. The absolute nature of the conclusive proof is bugging me at the moment. I cannot accept the amendment but, if you soften it a bit, it will be all right on the night." As with most ministerial statements, the nearer one gets to the realisation of the promise, the further it retreats.
We are now told, first, that the amendment is exactly the same as was proposed in Committee, which it manifestly is not, and, secondly, that, if the amendment were adopted, it would be a terrible onus to put on the employer. [Interruption.] If the amendment were merely technically defective, the Minister of State's resources extend to being able to draft and move an amendment in proper form in the other place to put it in order. Any argument on those lines is based on completely spurious reasoning.
With regard to the point that the employer would have to accept a medical certificate unless he could prove that his employee was incapable of work, there has been no mention of the converse of that. Suppose that the employer decides, against the evidence of a medical certificate, that a man is fit to work. The man then has placed on him the onus, the problem and the difficulty of going to appeal, and the further trouble of having to wait for his money until the appeal is resolved in his favour. That aspect is brushed aside. According to the Minister, the only onus that is important is the onus upon the poor employer—that frustrated brain surgeon who can see a much deeper reason for the employee's not being at work than the poor, simple doctor, who merely thinks that the man is unfit, can see. The Minister's argument is a total nonsense, even by his standards.
The Minister dealt with the question of absolute proof and being very nearly tied to the clause about which he was so unhappy in Committee. In Committee, it was said that

the production of such a note would be conclusive proof. There is an absolute duty involved and there is no way in which an employer can resile from that position. He has to accept it because the note says that the man is incapable of working. In 99 cases out of 100, that must be so. It is common sense.
The Minister of State says—and we accept—that there is always the one case in 100 in which the employer knows best. The doctor, because of his heavy patient load and because of many other burdens, may not have been able to give the man a proper examination and may, in short, have been taken in by him. I think that that is what the Minister of State was saying. The employer may have information that satisfies him that the position is other than that presented to the doctor by the employee.
Under the amendment, there is no binding commitment. If the employer is satisfied that he can prove that his employee is capable of work, he has a way out under the amendment. It must be common sense, surely, that a medical certificate, a medical note or a statement from the doctor will usually be the only evidence upon which the employer can operate. He will act upon it, knowing that the man who has provided the note is a qualified registered medical practitioner. If he does not, the onus should transfer to him.
I am disappointed with the Minister of State's reply. This is a small point, but it is a likely injustice. I put it to the Minister of State and ask him to respond. It means that the awkward employer can force the employee into all the paraphernalia of delay and appeal because of his awkwardness. If I am forced to choose between putting an onus upon an employer—whose only pain is that he has to pay until his part in the case is vindicated by an appeal tribunal—and a sick person who is kept without sick pay until the appeal is heard, I err on the side of the sick person whose only source of income that is. I believe that the Minister of State would be well advised, even now, to reconsider that point.

Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to detain the House on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely troubled by it. He has expressed great sympathy for the employee, but I should like him to bear in mind that we are trying to maintain a fair balance between two parties—the employer and the employee.
The amendment would effectively stop a genuine employer saying "I doubt your incapacity. If you wish to challenge my decision, you had better refer the matter to the statutory authorities." We may be dealing with a small employer who does not have his own facilities for obtaining a second medical explanation. If he is being played up by somebody who has a fairly poor record, in fairness, he must resolve the matter one way or another.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Rossi: He will refer the matter to the statutory authorities. They will weigh up all the available evidence, including any doctor's statement that there might be, and ask for further evidence, such as a medical examination by the Department's own doctor.
I assure hon. Members that most employers will accept doctors' statements in virtually every case, unless they have good reason for doubting incapacity. In those circumstances, if an employer refuses payment, the question will have to be determined by the insurance officer. If there is no evidence other than the doctor's


statement, no doubt the insurance officer will invariably accept incapacity. The onus, therefore, is already on the employer to provide evidence to substantiate the doubt that has been created in his mind, and the insurance officer will consider it. It is essential to avoid a situation in which an employer is compelled to pay sick pay when he has doubts about an employee's incapacity. The balance of proof should lie equally on both parties. The amendment pushes the onus too far towards the employer. The upshot would be increased costs and administration, which would fall mainly on small employers. I believe that the clause, as it stands, is fair to both parties.

Mr. Skinner: In the 1960s I represented many miners and, indeed, other workers on local and medical appeal tribunals.
I can see a fair old muddle coming about as a result of the proposal. At present the employee gets a medical certificate from the doctor. If he wishes, the doctor can refer the man to the regional medical officer. He puts on the certificate "Sent to RMO". Not many people who get the certificate know what "RMO" means, but that is what the doctor does. On the one hand, he gives the man his certificate, but, on the other, he says, "I have some doubt about this fellow". The insurance officer sees the remark, and if the man has not already gone back to work, sends him to the RMO. The result is that the insurance officer intervenes and the regional medical officer has the man examined. They can determine whether he is fit to work. That is the present system.
I can foresee a certain situation arising within the National Coal Board, although it could apply to other employers. Indeed, the situation in the private sector will be even more chaotic. However, I shall speak for my industry. Some people who work for the NCB do not do everything that the manager tells them to do. Indeed, if they did everything that they were told, no coal would come out of the pits. Much of the coal that is mined is the result of miners turning a blind eye to some of the provisions. If they did not do so, no coal would be mined.
7.45 pm
After a series of altercations with the NCB, via the manager, under-manager or one of the deputies, a man can find himself on the black list. If it is suggested that an employee is going to the doctor and—to put it crudely—swinging the lead, the doctor, insurance officer, regional medical officer, possibly the doctor again and, finally, the local appeal tribunal have to decide the issue. However, the employer can now decide that he will put the boot in. With 4 million people out of work and 300 to 400 people in each community clamouring for jobs, the employer, who will have the whip hand, may decide to stop the man's sick pay.
As the Minister has said, the person concerned will have the opportunity to go to the local appeal tribunal, which will be similar to those set up now. I have reason to believe that the Minister is thinking of dismantling many tribunals, because they will not be used as much. I have been led to believe that many civil servants will get the sack and will also be clamouring for jobs. If the employer decides to use the whip hand against someone who is genuinely sick or injured, more and more local appeal tribunals will have to be used. People will imagine

that it is "even Stevens" when the man or woman who is sick or injured goes to the doctor and subsequently to the local appeals tribunal. That is not so.
The Minister probably knows that the number of sickness benefit claimants who succeed at local appeal tribunals is lower than the number of those who succeed in appeals over industrial injury benefit. Overall, less than 30 per cent. of claimants succeed in sickness benefit cases. It is true that as a result of our experience, and because we collated all the commission's decisions, we managed to achieve a higher percentage for miners. However, the overall figure is less than 30 per cent.
Nevertheless people will have to go to the local appeal tribunal. To some extent, the miners have been loth to make representations to the local appeal tribunal about sickness benefit, but that state of affairs will change. That is why the amendment is important. The onus is thrown on to the medical authorities. It has always been regarded that the medical certificate carries the most weight. That does not mean that it always carries weight. However, in 95 per cent. of cases that certificate means that the applicant will receive his sick pay or industrial injury benefit. That is the important point.
The Government, who who talk about freedom, are swinging the pendulum away from that so-called independent system, which comprises the doctor, the insurance officer, and the regional health officer, and towards the Government's friends, the bosses. With unemployment raging as it is, I can imagine that an employer will have a strong card to play against anyone prepared to fight for the right wages and conditions at the place of work who happens to be sick or injured.
I come from an industry in which the sickness and injury rate is high compared with many others. In recent years, absenteeism has been reduced. I understand that it is at its lowest level since the Second World War. Nevertheless, absence from work is still extremely common as fingers and legs are often chopped off and slipped discs are commonplace. Those and many others are common injuries in the mining industry, so a large number of people working for the National Coal Board will be subjected to the harsh treatment that the Government propose.
The Minister should think again about shifting responsibility for deciding whether a man or woman is sick or injured to the employer. Employers do not have the necessary apparatus, expertise or skill to exercise that responsibility. Responsibility should be returned to the independent sector—the doctor, the insurance officer and the regional medical officer. That would give men and women two chances to appear before a medical authority. They will have the chance to go to their own GP and then to the regional medical officer if there is a challenge by the insurance officer. They will have two chances to appear before the medical people who, by and large, should decide such cases.
As the Minister knows, in many instances the insurance officer knows that, based on the commissioners' decisions, people's benefit may be stopped immediately. I certainly know of such cases because people come to my surgery or contact me during parliamentary business and I make representations on their behalf.
The Government are now shifting the onus from the medical profession and handing it over to the employers.


I am not prepared to see that happen. That is what the legislation proposes and that is why we shall divide the House on this amendment.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has spoken with great feeling. That is understandable and one respects his feelings on this matter, but I think that he has got it slightly wrong. [Interruption.] Perhaps he will bear with me. I listened to him carefully. Perhaps he will do the same for me.
Under the present system, the national insurance scheme does not automatically accept a doctor's statement.

Mr. Skinner: I said that.

Mr. Rossi: A doctor's statement can be challenged. The Government are not proposing any change. It is the amendment that proposes change. The amendment, which I invite the House to reject, suggests that medical or doctors' statements cannot be challenged.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It does not say that at all.

Mr. Rossi: The amendment puts an unacceptable burden of proof on the employer.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It does not.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Bolsover is deeply concerned that there are a large number of villainous employers who will take advantage.

Mr. Skinner: Of course there are.

Mr. Rossi: There are both villainous and good employers, and there are good and not-so-good employees. They are all human beings with human frailties. One must try to maintain a fair balance between the interests.
I do not think that one can contemplate a situation of the type which the hon. Member from Bolsover seems to contemplate. I remind him that the employer will be entitled to deduct from his payments to the Inland Revenue on a 100 per cent. basis whatever amount he pays out each week in sick pay to his employees. There would therefore be little cause for an employer to behave as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because he will get back from the State all the money that he pays to his employee in sick pay.

Mr. Skinner: That is precisely the point that I wish to put to the Minister, based on my experience with the National Coal Board in representing men's claims for industrial injury benefit. The Minister suggests that the employer has nothing to lose as he recoups the money that he pays in sick pay. That is already true of industrial injury benefit. It does not cost the National Coal Board or any other employer anything if a man or woman is injured at his or her place of work. Yet I can cite hundreds of cases, based on years of experience representing miners, in which the National Coal Board refused to accept that a person had been injured. As a result, people lost industrial injury benefit and could claim only sickness benefit. It had no financial significance to the NCB or any other employer, but the employer challenged the case because it had the opportunity to put the boot in. There are people like that.
I do not suggest that that is the case throughout the NCB, but there are people who must make those decisions. They must decide whether to pay out money and whether

to fill in the correct forms to enable the people concerned to receive benefit. Even though employers do what is necessary for their employees to receive industrial injury benefit now, there is no reason to suppose that they will not in future put the boot in with regard to decisions on sickness benefit, even though they can recoup the money.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Bolsover also said a few moments ago, unless I misheard him, that the system works fairly in 95 per cent. of cases.

Mr. Skinner: In respect of the insurance officer it does.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Bolsover said that if there was a challenge the employee then went to the insurance officer and the insurance doctor. That is exactly what is proposed. If the employer does not accept the doctor's statement that the employee shows him, the employee will be entitled to go immediately to the insurance officer and say "I have a perfectly good medical statement here, and my employer refuses to accept it and give me sick pay". Unless the employer can then show good cause, the insurance officer will tell the employee that he is entitled to receive sick pay. If there is doubt, and the employer shows good cause because of a history of what may or may not amount to what the hon. Member for Bolsover called "swinging the lead", the insurance officer will refer the matter to the departmental doctor.
That is very much the way in which the system now works. The Government intend no change in that. The Government's argument, in resisting the amendment, is that the employer cannot be denied the right to challenge a piece of paper signed by a doctor in circumstances where the employer feels that there is a history that entitles him to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Rossi: I shall give way in a moment.
According to the advice that I have received, the amendment would impose an unfair burden on the employer and he would not be able to challenge the matter in the circumstances that I have described. The Government want to ensure that there is a perfect balance between the two parties concerned. I shall finish there. I have said all that I wish to say on the matter.

Mr. John: I am amazed that the Minister has said all that he has to say. Perhaps he said all that he had to say some time ago but had just not stopped speaking.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister was not prepared to give way. I am tempted to force a vote and take up 15 minutes to show him that it pays to give way. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) impress upon the Minister that the best thing for him to do is to meet our point in the House of Lords? We require the Bill to be drafted so that the person who produces a medical certificate is entitled to receive the benefit of that medical certificate rather than have an employer say "I am not taking any notice of it. I know best."

8 pm

Mr. John: It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has got through to the Minister where I have failed. I thought that what he said was the burden of my two speeches so far. Obviously the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend has said. I do not


wish to press the matter to a Division, but the Minister should consider his position before the Bill reaches another place so that we may have some definition.
The Minister says that the position is not really being changed because the medical certificate remains the same. The system is being radically changed, however, because at present the paying authority is the insurance system and national insurance officers whereas in future the employer will be the paying authority and the person who can take the view that the person is not incapable of work.

Mr. Skinner: The key to the matter is this. The insurance officer, although he is not a medical man, is privy to all the commission's decisions over the years. In a sickness benefit case, he is likely to have a list covering three or four years showing the number of absences and so on. He can translate and interpret the facts of the person's case history in reaching his decision, so there is some background. The opposite will be true of the new scheme. The onus will be transferred from the insurance officer—although not from the doctor, who remains part of the system—to a person at the place of work who is not privy to the whole bundle of commission decisions and test cases. Moreover, on many occasions the employer's decision will be based simply on the wish to put the boot in. That is the difference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. This is Report stage. We are not in Committee, so hon. Members should make only one speech each.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Weatherill. That is why I made an intervention.

Mr. John: My hon. Friend's comments are correct. Unfortunately—I say this with great regret—the large body of precedent that has grown up within the national insurance system is totally unavailable to the majority of claimants, which is why a great deal of dissatisfaction occurs. If the Minister will intervene to say that he will keep an open mind and reconsider the position, we need not press the matter.

Mr. Rossi: I shall not make another speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have said that I must not. I merely intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).
Of course I shall take note of all that has been said. I do not believe that the amendment is right in the form in which it is framed. It shifts the burden too stongly in one direction. I am trying to ensure that a fair balance is maintained between the parties. Nevertheless, misgivings have been expressed. I will study the record very carefully and see whether it is possible to accommodate those views in any way. I make clear that I say that without any commitment whatever, but I will see whether it is possible to meet the reservations that have been expressed.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I do not seek to take advantage of that by sitting tight and saying nothing further. I am trying to be as forthcoming as I possibly can.

Mr. John: The Minister's remarks will obviously be read by those who will be debating these matters in another place, where fortunately, there are members who have the

relevant experience relating to industrial accidents and illness that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsolver (Mr. Skinner) has brought to our debate.
On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: We should vote on it. It should not be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I must put the Question.

Question put,  That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 131.

Division No. 97]
[8.5 pm


AYES


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Newens, Stanley


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Parry, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Field, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)



Hooley, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Dennis Skinner.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Aspinwall, Jack
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Knox, David


Bendall, Vivian
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
LeMarchant, Spencer


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Blaker, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Loveridge, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lyell, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Macfarlane, Neil


Brinton, Tim
MacGregor, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Major, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Marlow, Antony


Browne, John(Winchester)
Mather, Carol


Buck, Antony
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Budgen, Nick
Mawby, Ray


Butcher, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Mellor, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Moate, Roger


Cope, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Cranborne, Viscount
Moore, John


Dover, Denshore
Morgan, Geraint


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Murphy, Christopher


Dykes, Hugh
Myles, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Needham, Richard


Eggar, Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Neubert, Michael


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Newton, Tony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Normanton, Tom


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Onslow, Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gow, Ian
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Percival, Sir Ian


Gray, Hamish
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Greenway, Harry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Rossi, Hugh


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heddle, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Hordern, Peter
Shelton, William(Streatham)






Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waddington, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stainton, Keith
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald
Mr. John Selwyn Gummer and


Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)
Mr. Ian Lang.


Townend, John(Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

PERIOD OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'two' and insert 'eight'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made several valid points. I hope that the points I am going to make on this amendment, although they will be brief, will be equally valid. Given that the House of Commons has just voted by a majority in excess of 100 against the last amendment, it is unlikely that the House of Lords will look at that point. The convention is that the House of Lords will take the will of the Commons as expressed by a vote. As the majority was so overwhelming, the chances of the House of Lords debating the issue and making Ministers bend are remote. I would not wish that to happen on this amendment. I am stating the position as I understand it.

Mr. Skinner: There is a good answer to what my hon. Friend is putting forward. I was complaining that miners and many other workers are to be subjected to harsh treatment by their employers intervening in the payment of sick pay. My hon. Friend is concerned about the numbers who went through the Lobby. He had the remedy in his hands. He and the rest of his Front Bench colleagues should have marched into that Lobby shoulder to shoulder with us so that it might have been shown to the House of Lords or anybody else who is interested that there was a whole body of people against the Government's proposal. My hon. Friend should not give the impression for one moment that because he and his colleagues abstained they were playing an honourable role. The honourable role would have been to walk into that Lobby against the real enemies, the Tories, who want to line up with the bosses against the workers. That was what my hon. Friend and his colleagues should have done.

Mr. Rooker: If we had done that we might have got the vote up from 14 to, say, 25.

Mr. Skinner: That says a lot about the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Rooker: That is for my hon. Friend to decide, as no doubt he will. I am pointing out the position as I understand it.
Given the fact that we have moved on to the nitty gritty of the Bill in amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3

almost the whole membership of the House of Commons has disappeared, as one can see by comparing the last vote with earlier votes on matters that had nothing to do with the Bill.
In amendment No. 3, we are raising what is known as the linking rule. If a person has two spells of sickness joined together by a period of not more than eight weeks the two spells are linked, so that the person does not have to serve waiting days for which no sickness benefit is paid. In the Bill, the period is reduced from eight weeks which is the current period under the State national insurance scheme, to two weeks. That is grossly unfair and unjust, as we made clear in Committee.
The Minister should explain why the linking rule conditions should be worse under the employers' statutory sick pay scheme than under the State national insurance scheme. Many people would have to wait another three days without benefit or sick pay if they had a period of sickness following their return to work after a previous period of sickness. Contrary to what is said generally on the Tory side of the House and by those in business, people go back to work before they are well enough, because they need the money. There appear to be double standards as between the State scheme and the employers' statutory sick pay scheme proposed in the Bill. In this respect, fairness has become an also-ran under this Government.
I remind the new Minister what his predecessor told us in Committee on 8 December 1981:
With the two-week linking rule we have sought to reach a compromise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 8 December 1981, c. 78]
It may escape hon. Members how two weeks compared with eight can be a compromise. Big business, in the shape of the CBI, did not want any linking rule. It wanted the employee in every period of sickness, however close to a previous spell, and however related to that previous spell, to have to wait three days. It is alleged that between zero and eight there is a compromise at two. The fairness of that escapes me, as until about 18 months ago the period for the linking rules under the national insurance sickness benefit scheme was 13 weeks, not eight. The Government have pulled down the linking rule, and we see no good reason why it should be pulled down further.
Perhaps the Minister can make a case which we felt was inadequately made in Committee. Here I play devil's advocate. It might be argued that we are now to enter a period in which the employers will be responsible for the sick pay, that there will be an interaction of the statutory scheme under the Bill and existing occupational sick pay schemes, which may or may not have linking rules and waiting days, and that therefore there will be a problem when the two schemes start to come together for many firms, including the nationalised industries. It may be that there is an overwhelming case for a two-week linking rule for all schemes. We wait with interest to discover whether the new Minister can make a better case than his predecessor did in Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I hope that he will press the amendment to a Division. It is often frustrating for Opposition Members to press social security matters, because there does not seem to be a great deal of interest, but now we find that suddenly many people are interested. My hon. Friend should have learned that there were many occasions when only a few of us trooped


through the Lobbies on parts of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill 1980, but gradually the message got out in the country and people began to ask what went on.
I believe that many questions will be asked once this new sick pay scheme is introduced. I suggest that my hon. Friend thinks of one or two examples of the way in which it will be unfair. We do not want promises from the Government to look at it in the Lords. We want action. We put these points in Committee, and the Government showed little or no sympathy.
Let us consider the person who has an accident and breaks his leg. Often such a person must enter hospital for a short period, being off work for three or four days. He receives no benefit and, if he is in a low-paid job without an occupational sickness benefit scheme, he receives no money unless he applies for supplementary benefit. That person may well have to return to hospital a fortnight or more later to have the plaster taken off. Under this scheme, with the two-week link, there will be no opportunity for the four days to link up with the later days to ensure that at least he qualifies for sickness benefit for the later days.
I have encountered people who have had to have time off as a result of such an accident. They return to hospital to have the plaster removed, or to have it changed, and for physiotherapy or other treatment on one day a week, often for three or four weeks thereafter. Therefore, it is possible for someone to have four days off to start with and not qualify, then continue to have days off after a fortnight—perhaps one day a week for four or five weeks—and then take a long time before coming into benefit.
For people on low pay it is bad enough to lose four days' pay—the four waiting days before they start to draw benefit—but to have that go on happening week after week is grossly unfair to them. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a more generous link, as in the existing sickness benefit scheme.
In Committee, the Government said that the scheme would be too complicated for the employer to work out if the link was to run for more than two weeks. If the employer is part of a small organisation, it is fairly simple to look back through the wages book to see whether someone had one or two days off in any of the past eight weeks and to make the link. If big employers are paying out on a computer, it is easy for them to put that information into the computer programme. I understand that the Government are to spend a great deal of money running schemes and training courses for employers to make it easy for them. If they can spend that money helping the employers, why not spend a little to help the employee who is off work?
The Government are telling employess "Because we are being mean, do not try to return to work quickly. Take the extra day or days off to make sure, first, that you qualify for the benefit by getting in the four waiting days, and, secondly, to make sure that the links occur." The message to anyone who has an accident, as a result of which he has an arm or a leg in plaster, is "Do not try to return to work", as many people do. "Do not try to look after your employer's interests. Stay away. Otherwise, you will lose your entitlement to benefit. Make sure that you have one day off in the week to ensure that you maintain the link."
That is the message from the Government, and it is a very bad one. They are telling people "Watch out. If you

are the good person who tries to get back to work whenever possible, you may find that your benefit is cut; whereas, if you have plenty of time off and keep the link running, within the two-week period, you will qualify for benefit."
The Government should accept the amendment and make it absolutely clear that they have confidence in the majority of employees who do their best to return to work. They should also say that the justification for the scheme is that it will greatly simplify matters for the Government. They should not simplify them at the expense of low-paid employees who desperately need sickness benefit.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) fairly explained the purpose of the amendment, and therefore I shall not go over that.
I know that there was an extensive debate in Committee about the problem, and I have read the Official Report of that debate. I entirely understand why the Opposition felt it right to return to the matter on the Floor of the House. I make no complaint about that, because it is clearly on the record that my hon. Friends in Committee, having heard the arguments, gave a clear undertaking to re-examine the matter before Report.
What I can say is that we have reconsidered this matter. Since arriving in the Department two weeks ago, I have been present at all of the discussions involved in this. Having said that, I have also to say that we have been driven to the conclusion that we nevertheless ought to stick to the two-week linking period that is written into the Bill. The case for it is a strong and reasonable one, and for the moment we have concluded that we ought to stand by it. I know that that will not be very palatable to Labour Members and I am not in any way pretending to them that the case is overwhelming and conclusive. Nor am I going to pretend to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who raised the question of the possible relationship with occupational sick pay schemes, that we have suddenly come up with some great new argument that I can present to him as having totally changed the whole picture since Committee.
I rest principally on the arguments that were deployed in Committee, and which have to do with the question of finding a balance in the scheme between the interests of employees and employers, the interests of the Government and the national insurance scheme, and not least the interests of having a reasonably simple scheme that is relatively easy for people to understand.
Having looked again at all those factors, and the balance that we think it right to strike, we have been led to the conclusion I have set out. It is worth reiterating the point that the simplest thing of all—if simplicity were the only criterion— would be no linking arrangement at all. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr and others have said, there have been voices calling for that. We were not prepared to go along with that. We thought that it would be unfair to employees unduly to balance the scheme against them by having no linking scheme at all. That is why the two-week period is still in the Bill.
8.30 pm
At the same time, it is fair to say that, after a long and difficult period of negotiation the employers, having accepted this scheme, which involves them in certain additional efforts and tasks, are entitled to expect that the Government will have some regard to their interests as well in making the scheme as administratively easy to operate as possible, and taking account in general of the problems they may face in running a scheme of a quite


different kind from what most of them have previously experienced. Taking those two things together, we came to the conclusion that the period of two weeks was about right.
That is a point about simplicity and the interests of the groups involved. There is another point, which I know was made in Committee, but which ought to be made again, and that is that the main purpose of this scheme is to deal with what one might call day-to-day, ordinary short-term sickness—that is to say, somebody who has a bad cold, 'flu, or a strained back, or any of the problems that may keep people away from work for a relatively limited period. The plain fact is that in the real world most of the conditions at which this scheme is aimed, and which it will cover, are the sorts of things—the ones I have just touched on—with which in practice sometimes people go back to work a bit early, as all of us have no doubt done from time to time. I sometimes think that the House of Commons is far too full of people who should have stayed away with their colds and their 'flus, especially in a crowded Division Lobby. All of us have sometimes gone back to work far too early. It does not take more than two weeks to find out that one has not quite got over a cold or 'flu or a strained back. I have no doubt at all that the vast majority of cases at which this scheme is primarily aimed will be adequately covered by a two-week linking scheme. That is really my principal answer to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
As for the subject of broken legs, which I saw that the hon. Member touched on fairly extensively in Committee, my experience of broken legs is happily not so extensive as it might be, but I do not have the impression that it normally takes three or four days in hospital to have the plaster taken off a leg that has been broken. In that sense it seems very unlikely that a second period of incapacity for work would arise in practice in most of the circumstances adumbrated by the hon. Member in his contribution. So I do not regard that as a sufficient argument for overriding those that I have been putting before the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really saying that there is no problem, that this would not occur very often? If that is true, if there is no problem and it does not occur very often, then it is easy enough to go through with this plan because it will cause no problems to employers; it will turn up so rarely that it would be too easy to do it.

Mr. Newton: I am not trying to say that there is no problem and absolutely no cause for anxiety. I hope that I made it clear earlier on that that is not the kind of speech that I am trying to make.
Having said what I have about the balance between employees and employers, the likely practicability of the conditions with which this scheme is trying to cope, I do want to accept that there clearly is a separate set of considerations that must rightly be applied to the longer-term sick or to those who fall chronically sick and have frequent intermittent illness. In those cases a longer linking period would plainly be appropriate. If we consider the practicalities of what is likely to happen, those are the people who will fairly rapidly exhaust their entitlement to statutory sick pay and will be returned to the national insurance sick pay scheme.
One must also consider the eight-week linking rule. In conjunction with that, I wish the House to acknowledge

that if someone on sickness or invalidity benefit recovers and returns to work, the State will retain responsibility for eight weeks after. If he falls sick during that period he can receive DHSS incapacity benefits again. In the practical world, the sort of problems that have been thrown at the Government during the discussion of this issue cannot stand all the weight that has been put upon them. Taking everything that I have said into account, I stick to my conclusion that what we are proposing remains a reasonably clear balance.
My final point, although it may not give Labour Members exactly what they wish, will I hope at least give them some comfort. Throughout my speech I have acknowledged that I am not saying that no conceivable problems or anomalies could arise. Some problems and anomalies can arise with an eight-week or a 13-week linking period. The fact is that, in this world, wherever one draws such a line some people will fall on just the wrong side and some will fall on just the right side and it is always possible to point to the difficulties of the line. That will happen wherever or whatever the line is—

Mr. Skinner: Not as often.

Mr. Newton: It may happen just as often if we draw the line in another place. It does not necessarily follow that drawing the line in one place rather than another reduces the number of cases that fall close to the line. Line drawing of the sort that must exist in such a scheme is bound to cause some anomalies. I do not deny that some difficulties may emerge in the light of experience.
I hope that it will be taken as some reassurance if I tell the House that if, once the scheme has got under way, we find that hardship is being experienced because of the two-week linking period—which I doubt—we shall be prepared to consider changing it. Simply because Labour Members have shown much anxiety about the matter, we have specifically asked the officials who will keep an eye on the development of the scheme as it gets under way to keep a special eye on this aspect. I do not mean that we shall rush about and produce a different linking rule or an amendment in another place. When the scheme gets under way we shall be keeping an especially close watch on the operation of this aspect of it. If it is shown that the anxieties expressed in the House tonight, and in Committee, are justified, we shall certainly do something about it.
In that spirit, I hope that the Opposition will agree not to press this amendment.

Mr. Skinner: This is the second bite of the cherry that the Tories have had. Before the Conservative Government came to power and started to wreck the sick pay schemes, the industrial injuries benefit schemes and the other schemes that help men and women—largely blue collar workers—who rely on them, they chopped the linkage from 13 weeks to eight weeks. It has been in operation for less than two years and now they are trying to reduce it to two weeks.

Mr. Newton: May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman—it is clear to his hon. Friends—that there is no question of reducing the linking period in the State scheme. This is a different linking period for statutory sick pay.

Mr. Skinner: The original scheme had lasted the course of time from its institution after the Second World


War. In 1980, under the first Social Security Bill, the Tories reduced the linkage to eight weeks. The fact that that is another way they are pushing their liabilities off on somebody else in a different fashion, is neither here nor there. I acknowledge that it is not exactly the same scheme, but the principles are the same.
Has the Minister ever heard of people going off work with dermatitis? Many forms of dermatitis are prescribed industrial diseases. Many such cases occur in the coal mines but there are various types. Miners suffer what is known as "recrudescence". When we took them to medical appeal tribunals or local appeal tribunals—depending on whether it was disability or the case itself—the recrudescence used to appear on and off and at moments that the person concerned was not ready for. By the time we got a person suffering from this form of dermatitis—outbreaks of the skin, arms, legs and other parts of the body—to the local appeal tribunal, it had gone down and there was hardly any evidence of it. However, there was another recrudescence some time later.
I am trying to describe the thousands of people in the coal mining industry and, for example, the chemical industry who are subjected to these serious forms of dermatitis. They must go to work throughout the year. They are not similar to Members of Parliament; hon. Members could come here with dermatitis and get then-jobs done. Members of Parliament, unlike people referred to in this Bill do not have to fight for £37 a week sick pay or plead with their employers, doctors, medical authorities or whoever. Hon. Members are similar to a good many people in salaried professions; it does not matter when they have a cold or the 'flu.
The Minister talked about hon. Members staying away because they had a bit of a sniffle and might give it to other hon. Members. What a load of nonsense. Count the Members here tonight. It is doubtful whether there are 200 Members of Parliament out of the 635 here tonight. Why is that? It was necessary tonight to demonstrate how many Tories were present to get the Bill through. We now know that the number is about 130 and that about 190 hon. Members on both sides who were paired have left. They are not worried about sick pay because their money is in the tin; their salary cheques are paid every month. They have no headaches about how they will make ends meet because there is a whole gang of them on the Government side and a few on the Opposition side, not content with being so-called "full-time" Members of Parliament and dragging in a salary of £14, 000, have several directorships under their belts as well.
Hon. Members have got the cheek to talk about people in coal mines who are suffering from pneumoconiosis and gasping for breath, not knowing how they will walk to the main gates and having to make several stops to get there. Pneumoconiosis affects 10 to 30 per cent, of them. Has the Minister ever seen a man gasping for breath because he is riddled with pneumoconiosis and emphysema? I do not suppose for a minute that he has. These are the people who will lose. They lost when he shifted the period from 13 to eight weeks.
A whole range of hon. Members do not understand how those people manage to carry on, because they have no problems. When I fractured my skull two years ago, I did not have to worry as I used to do when I worked in the pit.

I had to worry about getting better, but I no longer had to worry about getting out of the sick bed to get to work and earn money; I was on industrial or sickness benefit.
We are discussing and attacking the wealth creators. Such people in the Tory Party talk about encouraging those that want to fight to earn a living. They are always talking about those out of work. They seldom talk about getting them back to work; they are more concerned with throwing more out of work. They are saying to the reduced number of people still in work—not those in the professional classes, but those who work in pits, on the shop floor and in industries where they have to rely on sick pay—that they will cut and carve even further. They are saying "We are going to stop you getting sickness benefit during those times for which you could get it before this Bill goes through the House of Commons and the House of Lords". What a scandal.
The Prime Minister had the cheek to stand on the steps of No. 10 in 1979 and talk about St. Francis of Assisi, about hope and compassion and one nation. Yet now the Government are attacking the people who are creating the wealth of the country. What a scandal.
8.45 pm
I tell my hon. Friends now, before they attempt to withdraw the amendment, that I shall go through the Lobby in its favour if I can find someone who is prepared to act as a teller. I am not prepared to crawl on my hands and knees to the House of Lords to put things right. I am in the business of getting rid of the Lords, and I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench understand that.
This is another attack on the people who provide the Minister with his "brass". Without the people who go down the mines and provide the goods and services, and sometimes have to get sick pay, he could not do his job, because there would be no money for the Chancellor to dish out and pay Ministers their fat salaries. He does not need to worry about the dark days. He does not have to get back to work because the money has run out. Nor do his hon. Friends.
The Minister says that he will have another look at the matter. What are the Government doing? They are throwing people out of work, and attacking those who are still in work. They are trying to make them crawl because they know that there are 300 or 400 others after their jobs. The Government are driving them back to work before they are ready to work. All the people who suffer from pneumoconiosis, dermatitis and other industrial diseases are the very people who depend on linkage to save an extra few "bob" in order to exist.
What about the people with slipped discs? Does the Minister realise that that is a major problem in heavy industry? People who suffer from slipped discs go off work for two or three weeks, come back to work, but then have to go off again. The attack comes on all at once. No doubt some Members of Parliament have suffered from it, but they do not have to worry about the sick pay and the linkage.
We should like the Minister to bring back linkage and change the period back to 13 weeks. He should think about the people in work who are providing the wealth of the country. If he is not prepared to do that, which I am sure he is not, we shall force the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to comment on what the Minister said, because he produced a lot of platitudinous rubbish that I want to challenge.
The hon. Gentleman said that, after the Committee stage, the Government would look at the balance, as though they had been fair. The Minister represents employers, not fairness. I was struck by the fact that, while he was speaking, sitting behind him was the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). In addition to the £14, 000 that he gets as a Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Bridlington is a director of about 10 companies. He is an employer. How does the Minister's bag-carrier, with his £20, 000, £30, 000 or £40, 000 a year, view workers? He thinks that the wages councils make awards that are far too lavish. The bag-carrier nods his head in agreement. What sort of balance is that from this class-ridden Government who are attacking the workers and lining their pockets, day in, day out, as they work here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide of the amendment.

Mr. Cryer: The amendment is designed to give back to the employees what the employer class, represented by the Government, are taking from them.
The Minister said that he had taken a balanced view. In Committee, the Tories promised that they would examine this matter, but they are not in a position to take a balanced view. Their talk of balance is a mockery of words, because they represent employers, not employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the Tories want to cut back the rights of those who create the wealth.
The Minister said that he wanted a simple scheme. He wants it to be simple for employers, not for employees. As a concession to the fact that there has been linking for many years, and to cloak their attempt to wreck a scheme of national insurance that has been built up and is much appreciated by working people, the Government rejected no linking at all. They said that, as a matter of balance, they would introduce two weeks as they had to recognise the view of employees.
The reality is that the Government are recognising the views of employers. As a sop, they say that officials will examine the issue.
Who will suffer the hardship? It will be retrospective examination and working people will suffer hardship. The evidence of suffering will be presented to official working committees. At some stage the information will filter through to the Minister, and he might then introduce amending legislation, presumably by way of statutory instruments. How long will that take? Will it take a year for examination and then another six or 12 months before the reintroduction of the change? The Minister said that he will not be rushing around having changes.
Meanwhile, who will be suffering hardship? Workers in factories, shops and warehouse premises will suffer hardship while the evidence is collected by the officials and filtered through the machine. We say that that is not good enough.
By accepting that officials will examine this matter, the Minister recognises that there is a possibility of hardship. It ill becomes him to advance that view from the Dispatch Box when he knows that hardship will be suffered not by him or hon. Members, but by workers who are already suffering enough hardship. There are 3 million of them on the dole.
The Minister has not given a good medical reason. Broken limb cases have already been mentioned as

requiring linking, but there is also back strain. Some years ago there was an Adjournment debate on the subject of back pain. The Back Pain Association suggested that up to 15 million days a year are lost through back strains. Does the Minister realise that agriculture workers, irrespective of age and ability, are allowed to lift weights of up to 180 lb? In the textile industry adult male workers are allowed to lift up to 120 lbs. Other workers, who come under the Factories Act 1961, are allowed to lift "a reasonable amount"—whatever that is—irrespective of age. A youthful and vigorous man of 20 is expected to lift exactly the same load as other persons of any age. A man of 64 is still affected by that legislative limit.
When, in 1976 and again in 1979 I tried to introduce legislation suggesting a maximum permissible limit of 1 cwt., everyone said that it was a good idea because it might reduce injury. It might have reduced the types of injury that have already been referred to because a person goes back to work after a few days off and, because he lifts heavy loads again, his injury is exacerbated and he is off work again. That is the sort of injury that would occur over several weeks and would require four, five, six, seven or more days off.
It is exactly that sort of injury that affects hundreds of thousands of workers. It is not easily quantifiable, but it is a matter of concern. It is a matter of such concern that the Health and Safety Executive formed a working party that was given the task of producing a code of conduct and suggesting legislative improvements. The working party began its work in 1976. It could not reach agreement, so it started again in 1981. it is still deliberating. Clearly the issue presents a problem that is recognised. It is the type of problem that is covered by the amendment. It would benefit many people if the linking covered a longer period.
Surely the Opposition's proposal of eight weeks is extremely reasonable and should be accepted. It has already been argued that 13 weeks has been reduced to eight weeks. We are talking about a further swingeing decrease in the rights of workers. None of us in the House lifts heavy weights or, for that matter, any weights. Who is doing the lifting? It is being done by workers in offices, factories and shops. Nurses are also involved. Back pain is very much a concern of nurses, who have to lift patients. These workers have to balance their wages each week and carefully allocate their expenditure. These are the people who made the nation. The Tory Government are attacking these people in an unjustifiable and discriminatory fashion.
When the Minister says "We have considered the matter and, on balance we have decided that two weeks is appropriate", he is, in effect saying, "I represent the employers. This is an attack on those who create work for the nation." We should defend workers against these attacks. I hope that the Minister will accept that eight weeks is appropriate. If not, we shall do our utmost to ensure that eight weeks is placed on the record as a desirable aim.

Question put,  That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 128.

Division No. 98]
[8.57 pm


AYES


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Newens, Stanley


Dixon, Donald
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)






Welsh, Michael
Mr. Bob Cryer



Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Mawby, Ray


Aspinwall, Jack
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Mellor, David


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus


Blaker, Peter
Moore, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Morgan, Geraint


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Murphy, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Myles, David


Brinton, Tim
Needham, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Browne, John(Winchester)
Neubert, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Newton, Tony


Buck, Antony
Normanton, Tom


Butcher, John
Onslow, Cranley


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Cope, John
Percival, Sir Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dover, Denshore
Proctor, K.Harvey


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Rhodes James, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Rossi, Hugh


Elliott, Sir William
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Gow, Ian
Sims, Roger


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Speed, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Speller, Tony


Greenway, Harry
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Squire, Robin


Haselhurst, Alan
Stainton, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heddle, John
Stanley, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Stevens, Martin


Hordern, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Howells, Geraint
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South )


Knight, Mrs Jill
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Knox, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Lang, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Waddington, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Waller, Gary


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ward, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Watson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Loveridge, John
Wheeler, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Wickenden, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Mac Gregor, John
Wolfson, Mark


Major, John



Marlow, Antony
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Mather, Carol
Mr. John Stradling-Thomas.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 29, after 'contract' insert 'or after the contract expires or is brought to an end'.
This is a technical amendment intended to clarify the position. I shall elaborate if the House wishes, but the amendment is intended solely to make the position clearer than it was in the legislation as drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

PERIOD OF ENTITLEMENT

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 19 leave out
'Regulations may make provision for continuing'
and insert
'Regulations shall make provision as to'.
This amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. It has a two-fold effect. First, it obliges, rather than allows, the Secretary of State to make regulations under clause 3(7). In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) indicated that, had a then Opposition amendment to this effect been selected, the Government would have accepted it. The amendment now before the House gives effect to that implicit acceptance in Committee.
The second effect of the amendment is to ensure that the regulation-making power is wide enough to cover cases where an employee is dismissed by his employer in order to prevent a period of entitlement to statutory sick pay which is known about in advance, for example, a hospital stay, from beginning. This kind of case was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Stoockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and it is our intention, should it be necessary, to introduce regulations under clause 3(7) to cover it. The amendment makes sure that it would be possible for us to do that. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North for bringing the point to our attention.
I should be happy to say more if pressed, but I hope that I have said enough to make clear that the amendment meets the point raised by the Opposition. It shows to Opposition Members below the Gangway that the Government are not exclusively interested in the rights of employers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

QUALIFYING DAYS

Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 30, leave out from 'in' to 'qualifying' in line 31 and insert 'which that day falls'.

Mr. John: I shall be astonished if the Government do not accept the amendment because they have indicated that they will do so. It relates to a highly technical part of the Bill concerned with the qualifying days. It arises out of cases that have been brought to the attention of the Minister where a person works a three-day week, but the days may be different days in the week. As the Bill is drafted, it is the qualifying days in the first week that stand as the qualifying days for the whole of the time.
If a person worked on Thursday, Friday and Saturday in one week and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in


another, it would be possible for him to be absent for a week from Thursday to Wednesday and have only qualifying days in the first part of that occasion. That is clearly wrong. After examining the point, the Minister invited me to put down an amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage to leave out subsection (4). I have done so and hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I am happy to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Amendment No. 11 standing in my name is consequential upon the hoped-for deletion of clause 4(4). My amendment has two effects. First, it makes more legible and understandable a rather obscurely worded clause—the sort of stuff that hon. Members always say that they try not to put before the public. Secondly, it provides that the daily rate of sick pay would be calculated by dividing the weekly rate by the number of qualifying days in the week in which the day in question falls. It is right that both employers and employees should be able to agree that qualifying days can vary from week to week during the period of the entitlement and the daily rate should therefore vary to reflect that.
9.15 pm
If in one week there are four qualifying days, the daily rate is one-quarter of the weekly rate. If the next week contains five qualifying days, the daily rate for that week would be one-fifth of the weekly rate. Therefore, for each complete week of incapacity, once those waiting days are served, the effect of my amendment would be that the full weekly rate, no more and no less, is payable. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept my amendment.

Mr. Newton: I am happy to assure hon. Members that we accept the amendments that have been proposed. The purpose of the amendments and their implications have been adequately dealt with and I do not think that it is necessary for me to elaborate further.
Although I was not on the Committee myself, may I say that the Department is grateful to hon. Gentlemen who have moved these amendments for alerting us to the problems which they have described in Committee. It has given us the opportunity to make sure that the Bill will be that much better when, as we hope, it soon becomes an Act, than it would otherwise have been. That is as it should be and I am glad to play my small part tonight by accepting these two amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

RATE OF PAYMENT

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 23 leave out '£60' and insert '£45'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 9, in page 5, line 24, leave out subsections (b) and (c) and insert—
'(b) normal earnings or £37 whichever shall be less for those whose earnings are less than £45.'.
No. 10, in page 5, line 26, at end add—
'(d) There shall be added to such sums an addition (hereinafter called "the child addition") at the rate of £2·15p per week in respect of each dependant for whom each child is paid. The child addition shall be uprated annually to maintain its real value in accordance with subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section.'.

Mr. Rooker: Although amendment No. 10 affects the money that the sick would receive, it is not precisely tied

to amendment No. 8. I give the Government due warning that unless they are prepared to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 10, we shall place on record our opposition to this part of the Bill by dividing on the matter.
We are talking here about the amount of sick pay for low-paid workers. We dealt at length in Committee on this because, unfortunately, when the Bill came to the House it was different. It was based on a different consultative paper to that which was produced way back in April 1980. There have been several consultations and the employers have complained at each step along the road. Nevertheless, during the early parts of the consultation process, representives of employers' organisations made it clear that they thought that the low-paid should nor be penalised and that those whose earnings fell below the limits that the Government had set—which, in the early discussions, I accept was about £35—should not receive less than their average earnings. That was the stand that was taken by employers. I do not know whether that was to dress up their acceptance of other parts of the Bill, which clearly undermined the national insurance scheme. Nevertheless, the employers have moved away from that, as have the Government. We are trying to put that back with these amendments.
First, we think that the earnings limit in the Bill of £60—if we can call it that for the sake of argument—should be reduced to £45 so that someone earning not less than £45 would receive £37 in sick pay. That would be a return to the figures used by the Government during the consulation process.
The Government have moved some way by introducing a third rate of statutory sick pay of £31 per week. Therefore, there are three rates: £25, £31 and £37 per week. The issue has become unnecessarily complicated because of the Government's meanness, aided and abetted by employers.
I should like to put on record the CBI's original view during the consultation process. It held that full-time low-paid employees should receive the minimum payment of £30—the original consultation figure—provided that that did not exceed the employee's normal basic wage. In December, I wrote to the CBI and asked whether it still held the same view. I received the following reply:
On the subject of sick pay for low earners, we certainly agreed with the point made in the Green Paper"—
that was way back in April 1980—
that no employee should be paid more when sick than when fit and working. In the interests of simplicity we were not keen that sickness payments should be paid as a proportion of the normal wage. Our only comment, therefore, was that any employee whose normal wage was at least equal to the minimum level of sick pay of £30 should receive that amount.
I asked whether the CBI was prepared to move any further as we now had a Bill with different figures in it. It replied:
We are bound, of course, to look at the bill from the point of view of the employer's interests".
We would not expect anything else from the CBI. The deputy director wrote:
as I have already mentioned, this includes keeping the employers' statutory sick pay scheme as simple as possible. This may, I am afraid, lead to a "broad brush" approach to certain aspects such as the payment of ESSP at a flat rate".
We do not accept that. The CBI has moved some way from its original position on the low paid. I accept that details of amounts in the Bill bear little relation to the original consultation document, but the principle on the low paid is the same.
Funnily enough, the British Institute of Management took exactly the same view. In its original response to the Green Paper, in April 1980, it said:
The point is accepted that low earners should not receive more during sickness than in health, but the BIM recommends that they should receive a sum equal to 100 per cent. of their earnings where this is less than £30.
That figure of £30 is two years old. The Bill will not come into force until April 1983. I have half a good ground for believing that the show will never get on the road. However, that is another point, which can be raised later.
The BIM continued:
The minimum is low enough, and a proportion of wages should therefore not be deducted.
I did the same to the BIM as I did to the CBI. I asked the BIM what its views were in December 1981, when the Bill was in Committee. The director general concluded his letter—having explained the position in detail—by saying:
For these reasons, we have not raised questions over the difference between £30 and £25. I do not believe that it is a matter which our members would wish us to pursue at the present time.
I do not know whether the BIM's members were consulted in the intervening period, because they are both individuals and companies. However, the low paid are being treated unfairly. Obviously, we are grateful for small changes, but the change the Government introduced in Committee will benefit 1 million more low-paid workers slightly more than when the Bill was first presented to the Committee.
I have re-read the Committee proceedings on that point, which was quite complicated. However, the inclusion of a middle rate band at £31 changed the position for 1 million out of 2 million low-paid workers, at an approximate cost of £5 million. That does not go far enough and that is why we have returned to the subject on Report.
We believe that the low paid—by which in this context, we mean only those earning less than £45 per week—should be paid £37 per week or their actual earnings, whichever is the less. The Government should have listened to that argument.
Hon. Members who sat on the Committee know that the Minister wanted to make a concession. He was forced to prolong his speech at the last sitting before the Christmas Recess, because if we had finished that part of the Bill he could not have considered a concession during the recess. At the Committee's first sitting in January, he made a concession. It turned out, however, that he had not even been able to consider the letter sent to him by the Low Pay Unit in the intervening period. It is no use the Minister complaining about that. This was a matter of substance and the Low Pay Unit was in the forefront in making representations to improve the scheme for the low paid. The Minister indicated in December that he was prepared to make a concession, which was a considerable step forward, but the Low Pay Unit was then deprived of the opportunity of a meeting in the intervening period. Although the Minister moved part of the way, that was not satisfactory and it is one reason why we have returned to the matter today.
Amendment No. 10 relates to the quite different matter of the child dependency addition for those receiving sickness benefit. We say that the rate should be £2·15 per week in respect of each dependent child for whom the addition is paid, and that it should be uprated to maintain

its real value. The child dependency addition for those on short-term benefit—unemployment and sickness benefit—has been cut by the Government.
The total package for children can be claimed, of course, but because of the child benefit argument raised earlier today there has been a cut in spending power. Leaving aside the 40p argument, the only way in which the Government can justify the argument that the package for child dependants is the same as by pointing to the fact that they changed the formula for calculating the child dependency addition—with the result that by November the Government will have cut £2·17 per child per week from the income of the unemployed and the sick. As we cannot legislate to the nearest penny, the amendment takes it to the nearest 5p.
To do what the Government have done has involved no law, no statutory instrument, and no new formula has had to be approved by the House. The Government have used existing legislation in a very warped way. They may claim that this was done once by the Labour Government, but so what? That is no excuse when the Government are in the business of cutting benefits in real terms, which the Labour Government were not. When the Government are in the business of abolishing national insurance benefits, to rig the formula for the child dependency addition so that families lose that amount of money per child per week is not good enough, and I know that my hon. Friends will have something to say about it. It is a scandal.
In the week that will end with Mother's Day and when the child benefit to new mothers has been cut back in arrears by four weeks from Monday this week, we are trying to put right a small part of the damage done by the Government to the children of the sick and the unemployed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). This is a central area of the Bill. We have grave reservations about responsibility for the first eight weeks of sick pay passing from the Government to employers, but there is even more concern about the level at which benefits will be set.
My first question to the Minister on this group of amendments is to ask whether we are talking about the amounts which will actually be paid. Will the £60, £45 and £25 actually be applied, or will they be uprated before the scheme comes into operation? These figures were put forward in the Bill in November of last year. I do not know whether the Minister was able to anticipate the levels of inflation that were likely to occur between then and the date when the legislation will come into operation. The Minister should make clear the level of figures which will apply.
We ought to be concerned that the amounts are being increased in line with prices, yet the crucial point is how many people will fall into each band according to the rates of pay.
Perhaps I should remind the House about how sickness benefit is made up at present. An amount is paid to the individual; it may be enhanced if the individual has a dependent spouse and it may be further enhanced for a dependent child. To make it simple for employers, the Government are no longer putting on the additions for


dependants. They will pay out simply a flat rate to the individual, irrespective whether that individual has dependants.
The Government claim that £37 is almost the amount of money that would have been paid to an adult male with a dependent wife. Of course, it takes no account of the child dependant. Straight away, therefore, people receiving this form of benefit are likely to be worse off than they were under the existing scheme if they have more than one child dependant.
The Government say that, if the person is in real hardship, application may be made for supplementary benefit. I think that the Government accept that those people who are getting most of their income from sickness or unemployment benefit are just the groups who do not realise often their entitlement to topping up from supplementary benefit and do not apply for it.
It is harsh for the Government to expect someone who is claiming sickness benefit to make a further claim for supplementary benefit. The crucial thing is that we choose levels which are generous, if we are accepting the broad-brush approach. The Government have not chosen generous levels. Our amendments have been put down to try to persuade the Government to be a little more generous.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be particularly onerous for a person on sick pay to have to apply for a topping up by supplementary benefit when, because he is sick, he should be at home in bed presumably? He would have to trail to the supplementary benefit office, and often have to wait for a long time to make his application.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that. The point was made repeatedly in Committee that it ought to be made as simple as possible for someone who is ill to get all the benefit he needs without having to exert himself in any way which may be difficult.
The Government are talking of a payment of £37 to everyone who earns more than £60. That amount is not all that generous. But if a person is off for a week, since he will not receive any money for the first three days, he will not get the £37 anyway. He will receive three-sevenths less than that—in other words, about £15 less. That means that the amount of benefit will be much closer to £22 than £37. I do not know if the Minister has tried to survive on that amount of money per week. It is not easy.
Let us consider the group that amendment No. 8 is designed to deal with, those who have earnings between £45 and £60. In normal times, it is not easy to survive on earnings like that, but if the person is off sick his benefit will be only £31. Again, because of the three days when he receives no benefit, he will get £12 less.
People earning between £45 and £60 a week must have sufficient savings to tide them over in the week in which they are ill, when they will receive only about £19, or they must go to the supplementary benefit office and obtain the extra. That makes life difficult for them.
Then we come down to those earning even less than £37 per week, who are told that they go down to an even smaller sum—£25. We are saying that those in the very low-paid jobs should receive the same when they are off sick as they would get from their normal wage. In other words, their sickness benefit should be based on their normal wage, and not on a reduced sum of £25.
It was said earlier in the debate that we were talking about people who were off work for one or two weeks A person who is off work for one or two weeks has the three non-qualifying days to start with, and the sum that he receives is very low for one week anyway. We are talking about people receiving about £15. The Bill says of the bottom category:
Statutory sick pay shall be payable by an employer at the weekly rate of—… (c) £25".
As there are the three days for which the person who is sick receives no money, we are really talking about £15, a miserable sum.
Those whose earnings are less than £45 a week will not be the sort of people who have savings and who can carry themselves over the week when they are sick. They are struggling to make ends meet from day to day. In suddenly telling someone who is earning only perhaps £39 or £40 per week that he will have less coming in, going right down to £15, the Government are making it impossible for him to survive on the sickness benefit. That means an extra trip to qualify for supplementary benefit, something that many people strongly resent if they have to do it while their health is poor.
The Government say that it is very important that no one should receive more money, or even the same money, when he is sick than when he is working, for otherwise malingerers will be encouraged. That is very unlikely during the first fortnight, because of the first three days when the person concerned receives no money at all. If the money received is averaged out over the first fortnight we see that he is almost bound to be worse off even if the sickness pay is based on actual wages rather than on the £25 that the Minister suggests for those on the lowest incomes.
The Minister must re-examine the matter, not only out of concern for individuals but because of the problems of administration. It is crazy to push extra people on to supplementary benefit, saying that more people must go through the scheme for sick pay from their employer and then find out how they can obtain extra benefit, going to the supplementary benefit office to receive the extra money.
It would be simpler for the Government to start the sick pay scheme at a decent level and save people having to go through two sets of administration, unless—and this is our suspicion—the Government are out to save money, thinking that people will be confused and muddled and will not realise that, not having received an adequate amount in sickness benefit, they are entitled to go for supplementary benefit. If that is so, the Government are hoping that people will not receive all the benefits that they need. It is far better to give them the money in the sickness benefit.
Amendment No. 10 deals with retaining an addition for children. The people who are hardest hit by the measure are those with children, who receive no addition. The Government have said that people would resent their employer prying into their private lives to find out how many dependent children they had. That argument was advanced in Committee. I suggest that most people who work for an employer would not mind telling him how many children they had if that would ensure that they received extra benefit.
The Minister also used the argument that it was too complicated to pay out to individuals different rates depending upon the number of dependent children. I


accept that that makes the scheme that little bit more complicated, but there is a simple solution. If the Government really wanted to simplify it, if they were actually to raise child benefit to a respectable level, then they could take out the need to have child dependent allowances paid with unemployment or sickness benefit or anything else. As long as they insist on keeping child benefit at such a low level, they cannot possibly claim that a child can be kept for a week on the amount of money available from child benefit.
Therefore, when someone is sick or unemployed he needs to have child dependent allowance added on to his benefit. I suggest that we have put down a minimal amount in suggesting that there should be £2·15 added. We can make a strong argument for a much larger sum than that, but there was some hope that the Government might be looking at the scheme.
I realise that as the scheme has gone along it has been the CBI which has exercised the veto. It has said to the Government that it is too complicated to do this. It does not matter about the fairness or the justice of the scheme; as far as the individual claimant, his family or his children are concerned, it is too difficult to administer.
The Minister must come back and say whether the scheme is now worth pursuing, if it is going to cause all this individual hardship, when the basic reason for the Government pressing ahead was their claim that it would save a considerable number of staff. Perhaps the Government can tell us how many staff will be saved and whether, as they have gone into the detailed adminstration, they have not discovered that more and more staff—possibly at higher grades—will have to be employed and that therefore the actual cash saving to the Government, by pushing responsibility on to the employer, has greatly diminished.
Certainly as we have gone into it the hardship for the individual claimant has become more and more apparent. I therefore appeal to the Government to accept amendments 8, 9 and 10 and to ensure that those who are sick have an adequate amount of money to get themselves fit and well so that they can look after their family and their family's responsibilites during that period without having to apply for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Rossi: I can possibly help the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). He asked me about the figures that appear in the Bill. I can tell him that in a sense they are hypothetical. They are the rates which would have applied had it been possible to introduce the scheme this April. They will be uprated and renewed by my hon. Friend this coming autumn with a view to increasing them from next April, so that the figures we are talking about will be higher than those that are in the Bill, although I am not in a position at this stage, for obvious reasons, to say what the final figures will be.
Having made what I hope are those welcome remarks to the Opposition, I repeat a pledge that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in Committee when we were discussing this matter. I said that I would return to it; I am doing so now. I am happy to repeat the pledge I gave him in Committee.
However, we must now part company. I am unable to accept the amendments. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must do what he has threatened to do, and that is to divide

the House on them. The effect of amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would be that the rates of SSP would be £37 for anyone earning £45 or more a week, and £37 or full wages, whichever is the less, for anyone earning below that figure.
There was a long discussion on this subject in Committee. The Government brought forward an amendment in response to the criticisms that were made on the basis that it was said that the Bill was too harsh on those with low earnings. We introduced the middle rate of SSP so that those earning between £45 and £60 a week will receive £31 in SSP. However, as we said in Committee, there is nothing to prevent an employer from paying what he chooses above those statutory minimums. He is required not to fall below the statutory minimum. As we all know, many firms today pay full wages and will continue to do so. We welcome that.
9.45 pm
The statutory minimum affects the amount that the employer can in future recoup and put back into his company, which he cannot do at the moment when he gives sick pay to his employees. There may be an incentive, because he is recouping part of the wage, to be more generous than he has been. Those employers who have not paid full wages may be encouraged to do so now that there is a statutory minimum that they can recoup in the way that I have suggested. In trying to meet the criticisms, the Government have found more money. I must tell the House that we cannot go any further nor would it be right to take away the discretion from employers in the way that would happen were we to accept this amendment.
In amendment No. 10 we are being asked to introduce a child addition to SSP of £2·15 a week and to uprate that in line with other SSP rates. The provision of a child addition was raised in the Green Paper published in April 1980, and in the light of comments on that proposal we decided that it would not be a desirable concept to introduce into this scheme.
There were two main reasons for that decision, both of which are still valid. First, there is the question of privacy. Any addition in respect of a dependent child could be payable only on production of proof, perhaps by showing the employer the child benefit book. But an employee may have good reasons for not telling his employer about his personal circumstances. While he would be free not to ask for the child benefit addition, it would put him in a difficult position because he would be conscious of concealing something which at present he has no reason to believe his employer needs to know. Related to that is the possible extra work for the employer, who may have to check the validity of the proof in some cases where, for example, the child has a name different from that of the employee. Employers were almost unanimous in rejecting the idea of a child addition for those reasons.
The second reason for rejecting the idea is that it runs counter to the philosophy of the scheme. SSP is a statutory remuneration during sickness and it has never been a feature of employers' payments to make them variable according to the employee's family circumstances. Certainly no occupational sick pay scheme that we have examined makes such provision. That would be a completely new departure that we do not wish to introduce in the Bill.
The House has agreed that the right way to provide for dependent children is through child benefit. As the House knows, child dependency additions to national insurance benefits are being phased out and it would be a curious anomaly or a nonsense to introduce them into sick pay. For that reason, I invite the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Cryer: Yet again we have an example of a Minister speaking on behalf of employers with scant regard for employees. For example, the Minister said that it is not right to take away the discretion of employers to pay full wages, as if that were a frequent occurrence in sickness. We know full well that it is a continuing struggle for workers to maintain their rights.
I am particularly concerned because the Minister said that he intends to introduce a statutory instrument to alter the figures in the Bill—the notional figures—that are to be uprated. I am sorry that he cannot give us a guide about those upratings. Therefore, emphasis on the figures is not as great as the child addition.
We are talking about people on very low pay who are struggling week by week. Clearly, under this scheme, sickness is a serious blow for them and they will be financially penalised. The suggestion put forward by my hon. Friends that there should be a child addition is extremely reasonable.
The Minister said that people may resent an intrusion into their privacy if they have to go to their employer. However, they ought to have the choice. It was suggested that if they feel it is a great intrusion, they need not go to their employer; they can forgo the child addition. I can hardly imagine that they would be prepared to make that sacrifice in certain circumstances. Incidentally, it also emphasises the importance of a national scheme that the Government are currently breaking up in this legislation and using the break-up as an excuse for not providing adequate financial assistance for people who are among the lowest paid in the land.
The petty excuse of intrusion of privacy that the Minister put forward should be left to the discretion of the claimants. They would have to decide whether the application for £2·15 a week for each additional child was worth the explanation and information that they have to give. There might conceivably be a minority of cases—a tiny minority—where that might apply. However, the vast majority could make the application, and the choice should be for them.
In any case, in the twee never-never land of Conservative philosophy, would not employers in small firms know all about their employees? They would know how many children their employees had, what they were doing in school, how dependent they were, and so on. Is that not, in the twee never-never world of the Conservatives, how all small employers behave? If not, the Conservatives are hardly portraying their image of supporting small businesses in the way that they often try and do.
The child addition runs counter to the Government's philosophy of exploiting those least able to defend themselves and of wrecking a perfectly good State scheme, but it represents a slight move towards making the scheme a little more acceptable to those least able to defend themselves.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the whole idea of getting rid of the dependent child

additions to unemployment and sickness benefit was on the basis that child benefit would be set at a level to remove the need for it? Sadly, since the introduction of child benefit, it was put in at too low a level. However, it has not been increased in real terms. It has been increased only in times of inflation. Not until we can increase it in real terms will there be any case for removing the dependent child allowance.

Mr. Cryer: I was going to come to precisely that point. As my hon. Friend said, the removal of that benefit and the failure to make it adequate has made this amendment even more important. We recognise that this is an attempt to make better a very poor scheme. Of course, it would be far better if the Government recognised their obligation, but they have not done that.
We are trying, by whatever means are available to us in this legislation, to ease the position of the lowest paid who suffer from sickness and ill health. It surely behoves people who, if they are sick, receive full pay without any diminution to bear in mind those who are not in that position and to try to frame legislation to try to meet minimum obligations. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. I shall therefore support my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight in favour of this reasonable amendment.

Mr. Rooker: I want to put on record the fact that amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which relate to the change from £60 to £45 and "the child addition", were the subject of tied votes in Committee. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why we are allowed to raise the matter again this evening. The Government could not get a majority against an addition for children. They could not get a majority against the proposal to drop the £60 figure to £45. Naturally, on 19 January we lost both amendments on the Chairman's casting vote.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record again the Government's clear and unqualified commitment to increase the sums in the Bill at some time following the review around November of this year, before the Bill comes into operation. The Minister said on 19 January that the review
will be carried out around November, using the latest available figures for price increases.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the reason why we had not been given a figure was that the historic figure method would be used, not the forecasting method. So the figure in the review will be the latest figure that is available in November. The Minister went on:
Once the review is complete, the Secretary of State will decide on the increase in the rates of statutory sick pay".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 19 January 1982, c. 225–6.]
Of course, there would be a public outcry if the increase in statutory sick pay did not follow the same figure for the price increases. The Minister is not bound to do that as the Bill is drafted, but there would be an outcry among working people and—it is to be hoped—among some of the more enlightened employers.
When this system comes into operation it will be extremely complicated. I myself believe that it will not come into operation next April. There will be a fudge, a delay. I say that because I know that the Government are planning to hold seminars for no fewer than 600, 000 employers between September this year and March next year to explain the operation of employers' statutory sick


pay. As far as I know, there are no plans for seminars for representatives of the employees. However, 600, 000 employers will be dragged through 540 local NHSS offices to have the scheme explained to them. As the day of reckoning comes, I believe that employers will realise that the scheme will be too complicated to operate, and will have it delayed.
In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put,  That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 130.

Division No. 99]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'y S)
Newens, Stanley


Cartwright, John
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Penhaligon, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Radice, Giles


Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd)
Rooker, J.W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Roper, john


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dobson, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, Jack
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


George, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, W.W. (C'tral Fife)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Home Robertson, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Hooley, Frank
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Michael


Janner, Hon Greville
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


John, Brynmor
Woolmer, Kenneth


Lamond, James



Leighton, Ronald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mc Cartney, Hugh
Mr. George Morton and


Mc Donald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Browne, John(Winchester)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Buck, Antony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Dover, Denshore





Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Needham, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Nelson, Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Neubert, Michael


Elliott, Sir William
Newton, Tony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Normanton, Tom


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Onslow, Cranley


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gow, Ian
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Percival, Sir Ian


Gray, Hamish
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Greenway, Harry
Proctor, K.Harvey


Griffiths, PeterPortsm 'thN)
Raison, RtHon Timothy


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Renton, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
RhodesJames, Robert


Hawksley, Warren
Ridley, HonNicholas


Heddle, John
Rossi, Hugh


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David(Wirral)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Jill
Speller, Tony


Knox, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stainton, Keith


LeMarchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Stanley, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)
Stevens, Martin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Loveridge, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lyell, Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Donald


Major, John
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Marlow, Antony
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Waddington, David


Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Mayhew, Patrick
Ward, John


Mellor, David
Watson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Wheeler, John


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Wickenden, Keith


Moate, Roger
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Montgomery, Fergus
Wolfson, Mark


Moore, John



Morgan, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Myles, David
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered, 
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 5, line 26, at end add—
(d) There shall be added to such sums an addition (hereinafter called 'the child addition') at the rate of £2·15p per week in respect of each dependant for whom each child is paid. The child addition shall be uprated annually to maintain its real value in accordance with subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section.".—[Mr. Rooker.]

Question put,  That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 127.

Division No. 100]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Parry, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Radice, Giles


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Rooker, J.W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Roper, John


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dobson, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, Jack
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J.(N Lanark)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Wain wright, E.(Dearne V)


Lamond, James
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)


McDonald, DrOonagh
Woolmer, Kenneth


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Mikardo, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morton, George
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Newens, Stanley





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Elliott, Sir William


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)


Brinton, Tim
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Heddle, John


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dover, Denshore
LeMarchant, Spencer


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Lester, Jim(Beeston)





Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)
Renton, Tim


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Rhodes James, Robert


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Rossi, Hugh


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Major, John
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Marlow, Antony
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Speller, Tony


Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, SirAnthony
Stanley, John


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Stevens, Martin


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Geraint
Thompson, Donald


Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)


Myles, David
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Normanton, Tom
Ward, John


Onslow, Cranley
Watson, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wheeler, John


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Wolfson, Mark


Percival, Sirlan



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tellers for the Noes:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 5, line 30, leave out from 'in' to 'qualifying' in line 31 and insert 'which that day falls'.—[Mr. Alexander.]

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 14. in page 5, line 41, after 'may' insert—
', in the tax year in which the review is carried out, '.
This fulfils an undertaking in Committee. It clarifies what was in any case the intention.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In a sense the amendment clarifies what was intended, but I do not think that it clarifies when in the tax year the uprating will take place. In the last debate the Minister told us that it would take place in November of this year. It is too vague to say that it will take place in the tax year. It would be better if there were a clear indication of when it will take place so that employers who have payrolls on computers have plenty of time to bring the uprating into operation. In the first year, the sooner it can be done, the sooner wages staffs can be trained on the actual rather than hypothetical figures.
By custom and practice in recent years the other upratings have taken place at the same time as the Budget. If the uprating in future takes place in November it would be helpful if there was an indication from the Government as to whether it will always be done in November or whether it will be moved to suit the Government if they are producing a mini-budget.

Mr. Newton: In the light of what the hon. Member has said I might spell out that the effect of the amendment is to ensure that if the Secretary of State lays an order increasing the rates of SSP he shall have to do so in the


same tax year as that in which he has reviewed the rates. That is the legal effect of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in Committee:
The Government will carry out the review in or around November".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 19 January 1982, c. 226.]
I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the answer that he needs.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 31 at end insert
'; and shall make such transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers expedient in respect of periods of entitlement running at that date.'.
The amendment provides a power to make transitional provision in the uprating order in respect of periods of entitlement to statutory sick pay which are running when the uprating takes place.
It is intended to use this power to provide that an employee remains in the same band of entitlement throughout the period of entitlement, even if his normal weekly earnings fall below the uprated earnings threshold for that band.
The proposed use of this power will be beneficial both to employees, for the reasons that I have given, and to employers, who will be spared the extra administrative work, when there is an uprating, of reapplying the earnings test for all their employees who are currently sick.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

RECOVERY BY EMPLOYERS OF AMOUNTS PAID BY WAY OF STATUTORY SICK PAY

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 30 after 'entitling', insert 'except in prescribed circumstances'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Mr. Newton: I should like to say a few words about amendment No. 17. The amendments taken with it are almost entirely technical. I shall be happy to explain them if necessary, but otherwise I prefer to move them formally at the appropriate stage if the Opposition agree.
The effect of amendment No. 17 is to provide power to restrict the entitlement of employer under subsection (1) (a) to make deductions from contributions payments. The circumstances in which this power would be used are intended to be limited.
One proposed use of the power is to set a time limit beyond which an employer cannot deduct. The intention is to prevent recovery more than six years after the end of the tax year in which SSP was paid. That is for reasons of practical administrative necessity, and is in line with what happens in many parts of the tax system.
A second possible use is to preclude an employer from deducting when he has already had a direct payment under subsection (1)(b) for the same amount. That is the sort of situation that we are trying to cover. There is no intention to impose unreasonable conditions; the intention is simply to provide practical arrangements for the working of the scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 7, line 40, after 'payments', insert
'(other than payments arising under the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976)'.

No. 19, in page 7, line 41, leave out
'to the Secretary of State'.

No. 20, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'and' and insert
'or'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) The power to make regulations conferred by paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (power to combine collection of contributions with collection of income tax) shall include power to make such provision as the Secretary of State considers expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this section.
(3B) Provision made in regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, may in particular require the inclusion—

(a) in returns, certificates and other documents; or
(b) in any other form of record;

which the regulations require to be kept or produced or to which those regulations otherwise apply, of such particulars relating to statutory sick pay as may be prescribed by those regulations.
(3C) Where, in accordance with any provision of regulations made under this section, an amount has been deducted from an employer's contribution payments, the amount so deducted shall (except in such cases as may be prescribed) be treated for the purposes of any provision made by or under any enactments in relation to primary or secondary Class 1 contributions as having been—

(a) paid (on such date as may be determined in accordance with the regulations); and
(b) received by the Secretary of State;
towards discharging the liability mentioned in subsection (2) above.'

No. 22, in page 8, line 26, at end insert—
'(7) Subsections (5) and (6) above shall apply, in place of the provision made by section 98 (2) of the Taxes Managements Act 1970 (penalties for providing false information etc.) as applied by paragraph 5 (2) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act, in relation to such requirements of the regulations made under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 by virtue of subsection (3A) above as may be specified in those regulations. '.—[Mr. Newton.]

Clause 11

DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 8, line 42, at end insert—
'(bb) whether a payment falls to be made to an employer in accordance with those regulations;'

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Government amendment No. 24.

Mr. Newton: The amendments are not quite technical but simply make a logical tidying up of the Bill. I hope that the House will be content to accept them as such.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 8, line 43, leave out 'may be so deducted' and insert
'falls to be so deducted or paid'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Clause 13

APPEALS

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 10, line 4, leave out
'or the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28.

Mr. Rossi: The amendments were promised in Committee and are consequential upon the alternative means of revising decisions which stand in need of correction afforded by new clause 1, which we added to the Bill earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 11, line 8 after 'officer', insert 'or'.

No. 27, in page 11, line 8 leave out
'or the Secretary of State'.

No. 28, in page 11, line 31 leave out 'appellant' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Clause 15

ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS

Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 14, leave out clause 15.
The amendment is probing. It would remove the whole clause concerned with the enforcement of judgment, and if it were agreed it would remove any possibility of someone who had been bilked of his sick pay enforcing a judgment against the employer. Clearly, that is not our intention.
In Committee I highlighted what I considered to be a big weakness in the Bill—that in order to enforce judgment in the county court fees appropriate to the kind of enforcement sought are payable. The clause is ambiguous, but the effect will be that the person who is trying to enforce the judgment will have to pay the necessary fees. They would be not inconsiderable sums which might, for example, in the case of an insolvency, the dissolution of a firm, be completely nugatory expenditure. The Minister of State will recollect that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) undertook to look at the situation and to respond on Report on the problem of the enforcement of debts and payments. I hope that she will do so now.

Mr. Rossi: I cannot accept the amendment. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said that it was merely a probing amendment. I have listened to the speeches made in Committee, and also to right hon. Gentlemen today. I have concluded that it is basically right, as long as there is some further assistance for employees in meeting the costs with which they will be involved in seeking to enforce a declaration that they are entitled to sick pay from their employers.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister says that people will get help with costs. Does that mean that from the first point where they go and ask for advice from a solicitor to the point at which they get their money they will not have to pay out of their own pockets? What concerns many of my constituents is that they are regularly told that if they win they will be paid, but they do not have the money to risk going to law hoping to win.

Mr. Rossi: I am not talking about costs in that broad sense, and I thought that we had covered this ground very thoroughly in Committee. I was hoping not to detain the House further in going over the same ground. We have already established in Committee what the procedures will be, namely that there will be adjudication of these matters through the normal independent adjudicating authority. Say, for example, it goes to a tribunal and a decree or a

declaration is given that the employer has wrongly denied his employee sick pay, that declaration cannot be enforced by the tribunal because it has no juridical powers. It does not have bailiffs that it can send out to levy upon the employers' goods; only an established court can do that, a court within the high court or county court system.
What happens is that the employee, armed with chat decree, declaration or certificate that he has received from the tribunal, goes to the county court. The county court will then register it, and it will then have effect as though it were a judgment of that county court and will be enforceable as such.
The costs that I am talking about, and the one that the hon. Member for Pontypridd was concerned about, were the fees that would be payable by the individual to the county court first of all in registering that declaration, the plaint fee, which could vary between £15 and £26 depending upon the amount recoverable. If he then wants, having obtained his plaint, to enforce it by warrant of execution he may have to pay another £3·50 or more in order to have the order or decree executed.
Whilst the amounts of the fees will be eventually recoverable by the employee from the employer under the order or decree, I am persuaded that it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to find the money in order to pursue his statutory entitlement.
Therefore—this is where I can respond positively to the hon. Member for Pontypridd—it is our intention to bring forward an amendment in another place enabling the Secretary of State, in prescribed circumstances, to pay the fees to an employee who has made use of the procedures. Such a payment would be recoverable from any State benefit subsequently paid to the individual. I have no doubt that the occasions on which an employee must have recourse to proceedings under clause 15 will be limited, but when he does the proposed change will be of help.
I could go on to explain the procedures further, but I have met the hon. Gentleman's point. The matter can be discussed in another place where the amendment that I have promised will be tabled.

Mr. John: In view of the Minister's assurance, which meets the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and me in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

PROVISION OF INFORMATION: GENERAL

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 31, in page 13, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to 'comply' in line 13.
No. 32, in page 13, line 14, leave out '(4)'.
Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. Rooker: The three amendments cover points that were raised in Committee. The Ministers at the time conceded that we have a point on subsection (4) of clause 16 about privacy. Although there is no Government amendment on that, this is a probing amendment to see whether the Government will re-examine what was said. The same applies to subsection (2) on confidentiality.
On amendment No. 31, in the way in which subsection (3) is drafted, the Government appear to be saying the same thing twice. We wish to leave out the words
to the extent to which the request was reasonable".
All the items listed in subsection (3) are reasonable. They are not onerous on the employer and he is asked to provide the information in a reasonable time. We cannot see the reason for those words.

Mr. Newton: It is difficult to go over the points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised without taking more time than the House would wish. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the Government have not tabled an amendment to take account of what was said in Committee, Government amendment No. 33 is intended to take account of at least one of the points raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Pantypridd (Mr. John). It is now clear that the prescribed person to whom information is to be supplied is the Secretary of State and not just a vaguely prescribed person. Although that may not go as far as some hon. Members wish, it shows that we have taken cognisance of the points made.
On the issues that the hon. Gentleman touched on generally, I cannot add much except to say that the Government's view is that the requirements for the provision of information are the minimum necessary to make it possible for the authorities concerned with the Bill, including the adjudicating authorities to operate the provisions.
We do not believe they will be used unreasonably, except to the extent that there is always the possibility of unreasonable people behaving unreasonably with any information. There is no way known to the law of ensuring that an employer will not communicate information that he gained in the course of employing somebody to another person who, perhaps, rings him up and asks for a reference. One cannot totally safeguard against that within the law. Subject to that qualification, we are confident that the provisions do not constitute a serious risk to the privacy of individuals and that they are necessary for the effective working of the provisions of the SSP scheme.

Mr. Rooker: I said that I thought that the Government had not made any concession, but I missed the purport of amendment No. 33. I apologise to the Minister for that.
The Minister explained how he would ensure that the scheme works for statutory and adjudicating authorities; so that they can get to all the information they need. Will the inspectors—I do not want to transgress—appointed to operate under clause 18 be involved in this work? If the answer is "Yes", does the Minister feel that the possible proposals to use a different grade of civil servant on the inspection process from that which the Government use for National Insurance investigation will affect it in any way?
I ask that simply because the number of civil servants saved by the Bill is 5, 000 gross. However, about 2, 000 inspectors will be appointed to check over the scheme. Therefore, there is a net saving in Civil Service manpower of about 3, 000. There is no argument about that. It has now come to my attention, from figures we did not have in Committee, that the 5, 000 people the Government will save at the counter, as it were, cannot be used—only a few

can be used—for the 2, 000 inspector jobs. A paper, presented to Ministers, was written by Mr. Brian Bridges in room A628 and states:
The surplus staff thrown up on benefits sections in April 1983 will be mainly LOl1s is and they could not be diverted to SSP policing duties requiring LO1s without a promotion bonanza.
I will not go over all these notes because it is unfair to produce them to Ministers at this time of night; there was no earlier opportunity to do that. One of the Government's ways out of that is set out on the second page of Mr. Bridge's memorandum; to downgrade the work of the National Insurance Inspectorate to LIIs. Mr. Bridges rightly stated that that would meet with "strong trade union opposition".
The Minister gave me the peg to ask this question because clause 18 will not be up for discussion because our amendment to probe this issue was not selected. However, the Minister's remarks just now have given me my gateway. He talked about ensuring that there is sufficient information for statutory authorities. I hope that he does not think that I am being unfair. Mr. Bridge's interesting memorandum requires some explanation, if not to the House now, certainly to the Civil Service trade unions before this scheme gets underway.

Mr. Newton: The best thing for me to do at this time of night and in the way that the hon. Gentleman has raised his points is to congratulate him on his ingenuity, apologise to the rest of the House that I gave him his "gateway", say I do not know the answer to his question but that I will consider the matter and write to him.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It sounds generous of the Minister to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but there are, of course, many other people concerned with this matter. A more important principle is that at some time on Tuesday night we must decide whether to give this Bill a Third Reading.
Of course, the crucial aspect is whether the Government will make the amounts of savings in cash terms that they are expected to make, and they are important in our consideration of whether to give the Bill its Third Reading. The Minister ought to do a little better than that and say that he will supply the information to those hon. Members who are interested some time during or before Tuesday's night Third Reading debate so that, if the information is as worrying as it is suggested—

Mr. Rooker: I ask my hon. Friend to give the Minister more warning that the saving of £32 million is reduced by £19 million because of the seniority of the staff who are involved.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Mr. Newton: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I am glad to see that the Minister wants to come back. I nearly intervened in My hon. Friend's speech to ask what the salary grades were in cash terms, but I decided that that would be unfair. We now need from the Minister a clear undertaking that before Third Reading on Tuesday he will make this information available so that we may know what savings have gone down the drain as a result of the information that my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Newton: I am tempted to observe that, in the light of what has happened in the past few minutes, it may be superfluous of me to promise to make anything available, because it will reach the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) before it emerges from my Department. With that light-hearted remark, which perhaps has a bit of an edge to it, I am happy—I think—to give the undertaking that we shall write and provide the best information that we can on the matters that have been raised to those Opposition Members who are present and have thus proved their interest, and to any Conservative Members who say that they would like to have the information.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 33, in page 13, line 21, leave out 'prescribed person' and insert 'Secretary of State'.— [Mr. Rossi.]

Clause 22

STATUTORY SICK PAY TO COUNT AS REMUNERATION FOR PRINCIPAL ACT

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 17, line 18, leave out from 'employment' to end of line 20.
The effect of this amendment is to reverse a change made in Committee whereby employers, but not employees, would be exempt from liability to pay national insurance contributions and surcharge on statutory sick pay.
I made clear in Committee that I had a great deal of sympathy with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. Indeed, I started off in this matter at their position, since I believe that the financial and administrative burden of the SSP scheme on business should be kept to the absolute minimum. However, having looked again at the effects of the change, I must urge my hon. Friends to support this amendment which restores the position to that in the Bill originally presented—that SSP should be treated in the same way as wages and occupational sick pay and be subject to national insurance contributions by both employer and employee. I urge this precisely because I stick to the principle of minimising the effect of the scheme on employers.
The reason for this apparent paradox is that the clause as it stands will certainly save employers without sick pay schemes a little money. At the same time, it will add greatly to their administrative burdens.
While the total cost to the Government would be large, the sums of money involved for individual employers are quite small indeed. Average annual sickness absence in this country has fallen to just over a week. So on average, employers would save £3 or £4 a head a year by way of contributions and surcharge. In exchange for that they will have extra administration—almost twice as much work in calculating the remittances due each month and a comparable increase in the amount of monthly documentation. This is because they would have to do the calculations on the week's remuneration both including and excluding the SSP element and then add the two together.
For a company with thousands of employees, the tradeoff between the savings from not having to pay contributions and the extra administration may not matter. Computerised payrolls could probably cope. However, it will be a different equation for the small business man.
That takes me to my second main point. The £60 million loss of revenue to the Government from excusing employers from contribution liability on SSP would, in the main, benefit firms which have existing sick pay schemes, the very ones which are already more than fully compensated under 100 per cent. self-deduction for heir extra costs under the scheme. Only about £15 million will go to firms with no existing sick pay provision. Thus, to help these businesses to the tune of £15 million the Government are losing £60 million in revenue. That is surely an unacceptable costly way of helping them.
What would the Government do about the loss of revenue? We would have to make the loss up somehow. Those whom it is intended to help could end up by paying higher contributions, reducing the help to them from the proposed exemption. The Goverment have done a great deal to improve the working environment of small firms. The most recent measures were those announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. These are sensible and direct ways of helping small businesses, unlike the exemption of all employers from liability to pay national insurance contributions on SSP, which is administratively cumbersome and financially wasteful.
Hon. Members, especially those who took part in the discussions in Committee, will have noticed that I have referred to the cost as £60 million rather than £65 million, the latter being the sum that we discussed in Committee. The change arises from the 1 per cent. reduction in the rate of national insurance surcharge announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. The entire House welcomed that change, which demonstrated the Government's determination to help businesses large and small.
Finally, there is a point of principle. Since the schemes started in 1948 the national insurance fund has been financed by three parties. When an employee contributes to building up his benefit rights, his employer and the State join in to share the cost. The clause as it stands breaks that principle for the first time. It requires the employee to contribute on part of his pay without the employer also doing so. Breaching the principle is wrong and could set a precedent that could backfire against employers.
I understand the concerns of those who wish to see the clause remain as amended in Committee and I should like to go some way to meet them, but that proved not to be possible for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the House will support the amendment, which will restore the position. Exemption of SSP from employer's contributions is costly and helps small employers very little while imposing a substantial administrative burden on them. There are better ways of helping pall businesses, as has been shown by the contents of the Budget.

Mr. John: The best thing that I can say is that the Government are seeking to correct a clear defeat that they sustained in Committee by a large margin of 15 to seven in a way that is not wholly consistent or convincing. The chambers of commerce have brought forward the "2 Minute Briefing", which is a title that overrates the value of the document.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is probably the time that it took them to prepare it.

Mr. John: I had not thought of that. I thought that perhaps it was the time that it took to crumple it and throw it in the wastepaper basket.
The National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses was anxious that this measure should be secured. It supplied briefing material to the Committee which seemed to indicate that there would be extra employment opportunities. It was for that reason that the Opposition supported a number of Conservative Back Benchers in Committee to force the measure through.
In a tripartite quarrel between the Government, the chambers of commerce and the National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses, I feel that I am intruding into private grief. I therefore leave them to sort matters out as best they can. For a party that proclaimed itself to be the party of the self-employed, the Conservative Party does not seem to be doing very well at the moment.

Mr. Gary Waller: A number of my hon. Friends, from the best of motives, but, I think, misguidedly, made this change to the Bill in Committee. I cannot speak for them now—I believe, however, that one of my hon. Friends, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hopes to catch your eye—but I believe that they have changed their minds as a result of information that has subsequently emerged. The Opposition saw their opportunity to have a bit of fun and to defeat the Government on what is no small point. As my hon. Friend has remarked, there was £60 million of public money involved.
It is clear that most of the money would have gone to the larger companies. The 900, 000 smaller employers would have shared only £15 million which averages, for each firm, 30p a week or £16 a year. In return, they would have had to devote a great deal more time to administrative work. According to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, there would have been great difficulty in working out the liability for employers' national insurance contributions. This would not have been a problem for the larger firms with computerised payrolls. For the smaller firms, however, the burden could have been considerable. The briefing to which reference has been made stated that
the change made by the Committee cannot help small firms. It will in fact do damage to them.
In case there is any doubt about the mattter, it is worth reporting that the association consulted all its constituent members. Not one of the 87 chambers of commerce and industry that belong to the association raised the provisions of clause 22 with the organisation. The matter is conclusive.
I am sure that the Opposition have no wish to see the amendment go through. I am not surprised to find that they are not pressing it. I suport my hon. Friend in the change that he now makes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I felt that the "2 Minute Briefing" by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce had not been well thought out. Although my reference to the "2 Minute Briefing" was a crack against the association, the title suggests that only two minutes had been spent thinking about the problem. The association claims in the briefing that it consulted all its members. Those members, having considered the matter,

did not feel that there was anything at stake. As hon. Members have heard, it is the Government's view that most employers do not fully understand the scheme and that staff will have to be sent on training courses in order to understand it. When staff have been trained, I suspect that any consultation with its members by the association will produce a different answer. It will have become clear that there are far more snags than had been anticipated.
Much of the briefing was concerned with the problems of working out the difference between paying the contribution and not paying it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the benefit level of most employees who are sick for one week will be below the level that will trigger off either a contribution by them or by their employer to the national insurance fund. Taking the £37 and the fact that there will be three non-paid days, we are actually talking, in the first week, of a benefit of about £22. Even assuming a generous uprating by the Government in November, I do not think that the amount of benefit paid for the first week will go above the level that triggers off the national insurance contribution.
For the first week, there will be no requirement either to deduct the national insurance contribution either from the employee or the employer. In the second week, in most instances, there will be a requirement. I believe that if a person returns to work during the second week, the benefit will be added to his salary and the deduction will be made on the combination of benefit and wage or salary paid during that period.
11 pm
The Minister stressed that the vast majority of people are off work for one week or less and that people are certainly covered within two weeks. Therefore, at least 50 per cent. of those involved will not be required to pay national insurance contributions on the benefit. The calculations will have to be made individually for the first week, and, where that person is off a second week, a different calculation will have to be made. Those involved in that kind of administration might begin to think that they should get some money back from it.
The Government sold the scheme to employers on the basis that it would not cost them anything. It may well be that the Government said that this is an expensive procedure, but the Government should think hard about returning to their original pledge that it would not cost employers anything. As soon as it costs employers something, some of them will feel resentful. When they start to implement it, unable to vent their anger and disgust on the Government, some of them will be tempted to take it out on their employees. That would be a sad way to bring in the scheme.
If the Government are not prepared to stick to this amendment, they should still consider returning to their original pledge that it would be a no-cost scheme to the employers and not to tax the employers to the extent of an extra £60 million.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend the Minister has courteously put forward the Government's view as regards the effect of this clause. We had a long debate in Committee and at this late hour it would be unreasonable of me to detain the House unduly.
Notwithstanding the Minister's considerable efforts to allay my fears and those of my colleagués, I still have


reservations and I do not hold to the view that was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller).
Much reference has been made during this short debate to the "2 Minute Briefing" sent out by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. This morning I sought a meeting with the National Federation of the Self-Employed's parliamentary and press office. It said that, notwithstanding the Minister's assurances in Committee and in the letter that he sent to Committee members, the association is still concerned. It said that employers carry out a first-class service on behalf of the State, collecting the nation's taxes free of charge. The work involved with PAYE and VAT falls heavily on the small business sector that does not have, and cannot afford, administrative staff to carry out this work. The SSP will make additional work a statutory duty. It still maintains that it would be grossly wrong to impose yet another tax—as it describes it—on those employers for doing work for the State.
The amendment leaves sick pay in taxation and the class 1 employee's contribution can still be collected. It removes the 13·7 per cent. class 1 employer's contribution completely and, as has been said, the effect of the Government's amendment will be to take £60 million back into the revenue. The case has fairly and reasonably been made that at this stage in our nation's economic affairs the Government can ill afford to lose £60 million. In Committee it was said that the Government are actually getting £60 million that they were not getting before. One or two of my colleagues question whether the Government were right to seek to raise revenues in the Bill. That was a technical argument and I do not want to repeat the arguments which we had at great length in Committee.
There will be many small employers in my constituency, and I suspect in the constituencies of other hon. Members, who are not fully aware of the implications of the Government's restoration of the clause to what it was before the Committee stage. I predict that many hon. Members will inflate the Minister's postbag, when small employers write to them about this.
The National Federation of the Self-Employed makes the point that it has committed its members in the areas and regions. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce made its submission at a very late stage yesterday. It made no representations to us, as far as I was concerned as a member of the Committee. At that stage, it did not recommend accepting the Government's position. Therefore, it is intriguing that it should seek to persuade us now that it is the spokesman for small business men. However, it does not appear to have consulted locally.

Mr. Rooker: I do not know why, but I received three copies of the "2 Minute Briefing" in three separate envelopes. I sent them all back and pointed out that the ABCC was obviously very affluent. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the last part of the briefing in which the ABCC, seems to ask for a Select Committee investigation into those bodies that purport to represent industry? It seems to imply not only that the National Federation of the Self-Employed but other bodies that made similar representations to hon. Members are not representing their members. When the Government have organised their 600, 000 seminars to explain the scheme to

employers between September 1982 and March 1983, we shall find out quickly who represents the small sector of industry.

Mr. Brown: I somewhat resented the comments in the conclusion. Hon. Members' motives in moving and supporting the amendment in Committee seemed to be challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is unable to be with us tonight, took great exception—as several Committee Members did—to the contents of the concluding paragraph. Indeed, the National Federation of the Self-Employed, which has consulted far more widely, said that the chambers of commerce represented among others big business, bank managers and the managers of high street branches of big outfits, whereas the National Federation of the Self-Employed was made up exclusively of small, independent entrepreneurs.
At this late stage, it is not for me to go into a great debate between the respective merits of the chambers of commerce and the NFSE. I find myself in an extremely unusual position, because I voted a certain way in Committee, and the official Opposition often challenge one about what will happen. I regret that the official Opposition are unlikely to give me an opportunity to continue to express my view.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall not give way. I am free to express my view when the Question is put. However, in Committee, we thought that we had made such a convincing case that we would carry the Opposition with us. Indeed, we did so. However, I fear that my lone voice tonight will be unable to carry the official Opposition with me in such great numbers. [Interruption.] In Committee, we made the case and the Opposition joined us and I was grateful for their support. I regret that mine is probably a lone voice tonight.

Mr.. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have responded to an intervention that I can anticipate and, therefore, to the relief of my Whips, I shall resume my seat.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: I shall not delay the House for more than a minute. As my constituency has not got the high rates of unemployment that other parts of the country have—because of the high proportion of small businesses and the large number of entrepreneurs—and as many of my constituents are taking the plunge and opening new businesses and setting up new enterprises, and as I am most anxious to give them the best possible support, I supported my hon. Friends in Committee, who wished to amend clause 22. In that way, employers would not have to pay national insurance contributions when responsible for sick pay.
We were warned that administration would be difficult and that the amount of money saved would not compensate for that difficulty. But, because we were all so anxious to encourage small businesses, we ignored that advice and also the fact that only a small proportion of the money that it would cost the Government would go to the small business sector. Of course, at that time the Minister could not divulge the contents of the Budget. Since then, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has helped the small business sector immeasurably and all businesses, by giving relief on the


national insurance surcharge. In this way, the Government have shown their commitment to small businesses. Therefore, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), I am determined to vote with the Government tonight.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PERIODS OF ENTITLEMENT DO NOT ARISE

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 39, line 11, leave out 'less than eight' and insert 'not more than 12'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 42, in page 39, line 45, leave out 'of at least eight' and insert 'exceeding 12'.
No. 44, in page 40, line 10, leave out 'is at least eight' and insert 'exceeds 12'.

Mr. Waller: The amendments are intended to bring the provisions relating to casual workers into line with employment law. It seems sensible that employers should not have to work out one pay period for employment law and a completely separate period to define casual workers for the purposes of this legislation. My objective is therefore simply to ensure that the same provisions apply for this legislation and for employment legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) for bringing this helpful simplification to our attention and for tabling amendments to achieve it. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 39, line 16, leave out 'eight weeks' and insert '57 days'.

No. 41, in page 39, line 22, leave out 'eight weeks' and insert '57 days'.—[Mr. Newton.]

No. 42, in page 39, line 45, leave out 'of at least eight' and insert 'exceeding 12'.—[Mr. Waller.]

No. 43, in page 40, line 7, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.—[Mr. Newton.]

No. 44, in page 40, line 10, leave out 'is at least eight' and insert 'exceeds 12'.—[Mr. Waller.]

Schedule 2

RELATIONSHIP WITH BENEFITS AND OTHER PAYMENTS, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 42, line 15, leave out 'eight weeks' and insert '57 days'.

No. 46, in page 42, line 35, leave out 'eight weeks' and insert '57 days'.

No. 47, in page 43, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert —
'(ii) of the amount of any such liability in respect of statutory sick pay;
(iia) of the amount of any such liability in respect of any other sickness payment; and'.

No. 48, in page 43, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert

'has been liable as mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) above, in respect of statutory sick pay, and at the time when he receives the notice—

(i) that liability; or
(ii) if he has also been so liable in respect of any other sickness payment, his liability for that other sickness payments; has not been wholly discharged.

No. 49, in page 43, line 46, leave out from 'withhold'
to 'below' in line 47 and insert
'until such time as it is determined whether or not the employer is to be required to make a payment to the Secretary of State under paragraph 8(2)'.

No. 50, in page 44, line 15, after 'above', insert
'and the employer has been required to comply with paragraph 7(4) above; and'.

No. 51, in page 44, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.

No. 52, in page 44, line 32, after 'shall, insert', if the Secretary of State so requires, '.

No. 53, in page 45, line 2, after 'which', insert', and purposes for which, '.

No. 54, in page 45, line 8, leave out 'falling within paragraph (a) above' and insert:
'to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies and for prescribed purposes'.

No. 55, in page 45, line 11, at end insert—
'(2) This sub-paragraph applies to any case (other than one of a prescribed class) where an employer is required by virtue of paragraph 7(4)(c) above to withhold the whole or any part of a sickness payment.
(3) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above may make provision for determining the date on which any payment treated as mentioned in that sub-paragraph is to be taken as having been made.'.

No. 56, in page 45, line 22, leave out 'is' and insert `was'.

No. 57, in page 45, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—

'(i) of the amount of any statutory sick pay which he was liable to pay to the employee in respect of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above;
(ii) of the amount of any other sickness payment for which he was so liable; and'.

No. 58, in page 45, line 40, leave out from 'if' to end of line 43 and insert
', at the time when he receives the notice, any liability of his falling within paragraph (b)(i) or (ii) above has not been wholly discharged.

No. 59, in page 46, line 6, leave out 'proceed under sub-paragraph (4)' and insert
'require payment under sub-paragraph (5)'.

No. 60, in page 46, line 22, leave out "the employer concerned" and insert
and the employer concerned has been required to comply with sub-paragraph (3) above; that employer".

No. 61, in page 46, line 32, after "which", insert ", and purposes for which, ".

No. 62, in page 46, line 38, leave out
falling within paragraph (a) above
and insert
to which sub-paragraph (7A) below applies and for prescribed purposes".

No. 63, in page 46, line 41, at end insert—
(7A) This sub-paragraph applies to any case (other than one of a prescribed class) where an employer is required by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) above to withhold the whole or any part of a sickness payment.
(7B) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(b) above may make provision for determining the date on which any payment treated as mentioned in that sub-paragraph is to be taken as having been made.".

No. 64, in page 46, line 42, after "(8)", insert
Subject to regulations made under sub-paragraph (9) below.".

No. 65, in page 47, line 7, leave out paragraph 12.—

Schedule 3

DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 48, 1jine 13, leave out "claimant" and insert "prescribed person".—[Mr. Newton.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

EXPORT GUARANTEES

That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 4) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Hostels (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I want to raise the looming crisis in London's hostels.
London has a legacy of large Victorian hostels for single men and women that now face closure or substantial modernisation.
Those are the opening words of the joint London Boroughs Association and Greater London Council all-party report on the single homeless. The report, issued six months ago, anticipated the likely loss of some 3, 750 hostel bed spaces over the next five years. Most of those losses will be at the largest hostels. There are 12 huge hostel institutions in London, each providing between 250 and 1, 000 bed spaces where modernisation schemes would entail significant reductions in the number of available beds.
I am not opposing modernisation or even closure, provided it is done within the framework of a carefully worked out timetable which would include the provision of rehousing facilities for those people disturbed by the necessary schemes.
What I oppose and want to spotlight in this short debate are decisions to embark on premature rundowns or closures not immediately linked to alternative provision, such as the decision of Westminster city council to embark on the immediate rundown of some 250 bed spaces in its 695 bed lodging house, Bruce House. Despite entreaties from voluntary organisations, as well as from the all-party Greater London Council single homeless panel, Westminster earlier this month approved a closure plan which in its first phase will shut down 247 bed spaces by July this year, without having made any replacement provision or rehousing effort to help those displaced. By closing down between 30 and 40 more bed spaces each month, the council appears to think that the problem will vanish. Somebody has called it the thin air strategy of Westminster.
Unless Westminster city council is deflected from this path, by next Christmas Bruce House will have a maximum capacity of 448 bed spaces while, on its own figures, an average of over 600 men have occupied the lodging house over the past six months. As well, by next Christmas the nearby St. Mungo's hostel at Charing Cross, currently providing 500 bed spaces, will have closed down, with only 200 bed spaces being replaced by the Housing Corporation, as the site is required for redevelopment. The adjacent Strand subway, which last winter sheltered up to 120 homeless people per night, will have been shut off by the GLC following complaints by Westminster city council.
I am aware of Westminster's plans to replace 160 of the places lost when it finally closes Bruce House in 1984, but the need for spaces is now, not in 1984. If nothing is done to alter Westminster's policy, we will have a Westminster crisis at Christmas 1982.
What may happen is that pressure will be put on spaces in other boroughs where responsible authorities like Camden and Lewisham and the Department of Health and Social Security are in the process of planned, phased updating and closure and, indeed, have started the process in some hostels. In addition to Westminster, the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea is in the process of selling the site occupied by St. George's hostel, which has

70 bed spaces. I appeal to the Minister to intervene to halt these premature closures in advance of plans to rehouse those residents who are being displaced.
I have mentioned Camden, where the council is in consultation with Rowton Hotels Limited, voluntary organisations and statutory bodies about the improvement of the huge, 1, 000-plus-bed hostel, Arlington House. It is also phasing the rundown of the Parker Street hostel, following intensive planning and consultative processes that should be taken as a model for all authorities with this problem.
The Government themselves, with the Minister's support, are also working to a timetable in relation to the closure of the appallingly outmoded Camberwell resettlement unit. This is the only way in which the crisis can be averted. We are entitled to demand that this approach be adopted universally. The alternative is to force more single people to sleep rough or to be exploited in the kind of properties that we know exist, where unscrupulous landlords are still free to operate in the uncertain legislative jungle that surrounds this kind of property.
Of course, standards need to be improved. Our attitude towards the single homeless must be improved, and now is the time. I should like to say a few words about the existing standards. When we talk about the single homeless we invariably talk about bed spaces—not flats, units of accommodation, bed-sitters or furnished rooms, but bed spaces and cubicles. We appear to have accepted that the single homeless person should aspire to nothing more than a bed space, rather than a home like the rest of US.
In St. George's homeless people are housed in tiny cells with barely enough space even for a bed. In Camberwell they live in huge rooms with up to a hundred occupants in each, whose only facility other than rows of double bunk beds is a tiny lavatory. In a "hotel" in Southwark well known to all of us there are 229 people in dormitories and cubicles without any bathing or shower facilities. In Lambeth there is a tram shed converted many years ago for emergency use and still in use. There are many other examples that I would give if I had time.
What frightens me, and what I am sure must frighten the Minister, is that if a fire occurred in any of those establishments the consequences would be unthinkable. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify legislation on that matter. Will he place clear mandatory responsibilities on local authorities to ensure that homeless people living in hostels and houses in multiple occupation are protected from the risk of death or serious injury by fire?
Last week the inquest into the horrific fire at Clanricarde Gardens, Notting Hill, heard evidence of faulty wiring and lack of fire precautions and of the deaths of eight people. It seems that almost every two years I have the sad task of raising such tragedies in the House.
Will the Minister now bring local authorities' duties under schedule 24 of the Housing Act 1980 within their duty under section 70 of the Housing Act 1969 to search out large houses in multiple occupation? That duty was removed in the 1980 Act. Will he also amend their duty to inspect under section 70, so that is not open-ended, as it is now, but is fixed to a timetable?
There are other old purpose-built hostels, built by the London County Council around the turn of the century,


providing mainly cubicle accommodation—1, 500 cubicles in all. We should look at what is a cubicle. It is really a cubbyhole, usually about 7 ft by 4 ft, to which people are usually admitted by night only, being excluded during the daytime hours. Often the partitions do not go right to the top, so there is no security. Possessions can be tampered with and stolen, and often are. So there is no social life for the single homeless people forced to live in these conditions, no social life as we know it. None of those residents can invite someone back for a cup of tea, a chat or a meal, or indulge in any of the social activities like the rest of us. No one can agree with that. They have no security, privacy, security of tenure and very few rights. Surely the Minister must agree that it is now time to speed up the phased replacement of this blot on our housing record and, indeed, on our social and Christian consciences.
A recent survey carried out in Lewisham revealed a disturbing profile of residents in hostels—extreme social isolation, chronic ill-health and frustrated housing aspirations. A total of 83 per cent. of the people surveyed wanted to live in a flat or a bed-sitter. That figure, taken some months ago, closely resembles the housing preference finding of 85 per cent. contained in the recently-published document "Single and Homeless". I hope to refer to that more fully in a future debate.
What is the way forward? The Minister said not too long ago when introducing the "hostels initiative" in September 1980:
there is significantly greater scope for helping some of those now living in impersonal, over-large and unsatisfactory hostel accommodation to establish themselves successfully in self-contained accommodation".
Good! He compared the challenge of housing and homeless and rootless with
the challenge of the slums, 
and stated
there is a clear responsibility here for the Government as well—a responsibility that is part legislative, part administrative and part financial".
Fine words! The report of the Department of the Environment Housing Services Advisory Unit, released at about the same time, found that
the scope for rehousing from hostels and lodging houses does not appear to have been widely tested or investigated".
That same report acknowledged the "particular problems of London", and said some London councils
face the greatest concentration of problems", 
although it is true that the researches said that
the problem in London is one of degree rather than difference".
A year later, the GLC and LBA published their strategic programme for the capital, and the two main prongs were, first, an investment of £10 million a year in small hostels, group homes and other forms of shared housing for the next five years and, secondly, a minimum target of 4, 000 new hostel bed spaces. They stressed that this was a minimum target, and said:
We feel that this is a modest target: it is little more than the minimum required to deal with the immediate crises of London's hostel closures".
A target of 500 lettings, mainly flats, to be made available each year through the GLC and LBA was another suggestion.
At borough level, they proposed a locally planned housing arid hostels strategy, including a resettlement service to help hostel residents move into mainstream houses. It is that aspect which Camden is already operating. I want to see it copied elsewhere.
It is true to say that the Government have so far boosted housing association funding for "special projects". The vice-chairman and myself of the all-party parliamentary committee for the Homeless and Rootless—CHAR—welcomed the Government's initiative. The committee saw that as filling a serious gap about which we had been deeply concerned for many years. However, we are still concerned about the need for a similar boost to ordinary rented housing for single people from both housing associations and local authorities, for as the Minister acknowledged in that September 1980 speech:
Housing associations cannot be expected to deal with these needs wholly themselves".
Yet the £10 million London hostels "package" to provide 985 new hostel bed spaces by 1987, announced shortly after the ministerial meeting with the GLC and LBA leaders last November, confines itself entirely to the funding of housing associations. The package is welcome. There are some attractive features in it, but the whole package offers nothing to London boroughs. It represents only a fraction of the LBA/GLC target figure.
I gave the Minister's office notice that I intended to ask some questions and make an urgent appeal. Will the Minister back his colleagues on the GLC single homeless panel when he meets the Westminster city council delegation on 31 March by pointing out that its irresponsible treatment of single homeless people in Bruce House is unacceptable to Parliament and inconsistent with Government hostels policy?
If the Minister is asked by Westminster council to provide special capital funding for small new hostel schemes to be provided by the city council, will he insist that the council guarantees rehousing for all residents in Bruce House on the lines of Camden's Parker House strategy?
Will the Minister back the crucial strategic role of the London housing authorities with further capital and revenue funding so that they are able to play the fullest possible part in achieving the LBA/GLC targets?
Will the Minister take action on the London Boroughs Association proposal, put to the Department last November, that the generalised need index should take account of the needs of local authorities to rehouse single homeless people from hostels, so that that factor can be includued in the allocation of the 1983–84 housing investment programmes to the London boroughs?
At this late hour in terms of the impending hostel crisis, I appeal to the Government to provide London boroughs with emergency housing capital to supply London's single homeless people with decent homes and to take acion against racketeering private landlords. I demand that no hostel closures should be allowed except within a planned timetable designed to provide housing alternatives for displaced residents.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) has built up a reputation in the House for being concerned about this problem. He has taken a further step this evening in developing that reputation. He has chosen the subject of hostels in London well because it is topical as a result of the publication of the report which


he mentioned. The hon. Member said some kind words about my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction who referred to hostels in 1980 as
an unswept corner of housing policy.
As a DHSS Minister until a few months ago, I was involved with homelessness. I recall replying to an Adjournment debate on the subject initiated by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).
I have been round Camberwell and many other hostels in London and I welcome the opportunity I now have to take our policies forward. The subject has attracted much attention recently—and deservedly so. Equally important, a debate of this nature is a further step in encouraging a more compassionate and enlightened attitude towards hostel users, who are among the most vulnerable members of the community.
As the House will be aware, there is a wide variety of provision on the London hostel scene. It includes commercial hostels and lodging houses, hostels provided directly by local authorities, resettlement units provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services; and hostels provided by voluntary and religious bodies, and housing associations. I shall say something about each in turn.
Commercial hostels and lodging houses have traditionally been one of the sources of simple but relatively cheap accommodation in London for single people. Standards in some have failed to keep pace with what we as a society now expect, and in the worst cases conditions have been degrading by any yardstick.
If management is unwilling to raise standards to acceptable levels, responsibility for taking action rests with the local authorities, which have a wide range of powers for this purpose under the provisions governing houses in multiple occupation in successive housing Acts. These provisions include powers to deal with overcrowding, basic amenities such as washing facilities, and means of escape from fire.
Since 1974, local authorities have been able to offer a grant known as "special grant" to the owners or managers of houses in multiple occupation, to assist them in meeting the costs of standard amenities falls. We introduced more flexible powers in the Housing Act 1980 to tackle overcrowding.
The hon. Member mentioned means of escape from fire and referred to two recent distressing fire accidents. He asked me to extend schedule 24 to try to deal with this problem. Schedule 24 enables a local authority to specify the works to be done to provide necessary means of escape from fire, but there is no statutory definition of the term.
I am advised that the British Standards Institution definition refers to "structural means", and the Department's view is that grant should cover only structural alterations to fixtures. Therefore, fire precautions are not covered by schedule 24, and an amendment to the recent Housing Bill to extend the provisions of the schedule was rejected.
More recently, as the hon. Member knows, we have placed a duty on local authorities to ensure that houses in multiple occupation above a certain size have adequate means of escape from fire. They retain the power to take similar action in the case of smaller houses.
Our objective was to draw the terms of the order sufficiently wide to cover those hostels where the potential

risk was greatest, without making it so wide that a major new administrative burden was imposed on local authorities.
In addition to the powers that I mentioned, local authorities can also act where the management of a house in multiple occupation falls below an acceptable standard, and they can make a management order to ensure that facilities are in a proper state of repair, are clean and in good order.
Local authorities are much more likely than the Government to be aware of specific problems arising in the area for which they are responsible. Local authorities have a battery of powers which enable them to regulate almost every physical aspect of the operation and management of hostels. These powers are backed up by penalties and in some important instances by powers to pay grant.
The hon. Member went on to talk about a particular hostel that is run by a local authority—Westminster council's Bruce House. I felt that his remarks about Westmister council were a little unfair, and I shall be discussing with Westminster council later this month its proposals for dealing with the problem. It recognises the problem and I am convinced that it wants to tackle it in a responsible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), whom I am delighted to see in his place, has been in touch with me on the matter and has displayed a keen interest in helping to tackle the problem.
A further form of provision in London, to which I have already referred briefly, is that of the resettlement units provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to discharge his responsibilities under schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976. This responsibility is for the provision of temporary accommodation for people without a settled way of life, with a view to influencing them to lead a more settled life, and is discharged in London by the provision of eight resettlement units providing 1, 110 places for men and 65 for women.
Many of the people at the resettlement units suffer from a wide range of problems, as the hon. Member mentioned, and resettlement officers at each unit are there to try to discover the problems of each user, and, in the case of those with particular difficulties, to put them in touch with relevant agencies who may be able to help further.
There are also powers under schedule 5 which allow the DHSS to contribute to voluntary organisations providing a service similar to those of resettlement units.
The hon. Member mentioned Camberwell and reminded the House that this facility is due to be closed in 1985. It will be replaced by a joint Department of the Environment and DHSS package which will provide full capital and revenue funding for a total of 1, 115 places for people in London without a settled way of life. The package includes provision for the extra costs involved, providing the degree of care and support which the residents need. We envisage that 985 of these places will be found by housing associations and voluntary organisations and the remainder by a combination of extra places in existing resettlement units—up to 70—and part III accommodation in London.
This is an important initiative which aims to replace old and unsuitable institutions with a number of smaller, caring units, and it is a new approach to resettlement. Voluntary organisations, especially those which cater for


groups with special needs, can often provide accommodation in small caring units which are greatly to be preferred to large impersonal institutions.
A joint assessment and resettlement team has already been formed to liaise with local authorities to obtain ordinary housing accommodation for those in resettlement units able to cope with independent living with minimal support. So far, 120 people have been rehoused with a good success rate. One of the problems faced by the resettlement team has been the difficult task of placing people who may lack many of the necessary social skills to go into independent accommodation direct from resettlement units. I am confident that the Camberwell replacement programme will make the work of resettlement easier and more effective. We must try to avoid institutional solutions to individual problems.
The last form of London hostel provision, and one of fast growing importance, is the accommodation provided by the voluntary movement. There is a long history of achievement in this field, but, as with other forms of hostel accommodation, much of the accommodation is in old buildings which were not designed for modern conditions. In many cases, this ageing stock requires refurbishment or renewal.
In recent years housing associations have also become increasingly involved, often in partnership with voluntary bodies, and new flexible styles of hostel provision have been pioneered not only for the traditional users of London hostels but to provide a base in the community for a variety of people who have special problems and need a degree of skilled support. These include ex-offenders, ex-alcoholics, the young homeless at risk, ex-psychiatric patients, the mentally handicapped and battered wives.
Improving standards and making good losses on existing stock, whilst providing for special needs, were among the main aims of the hostels initiative launched by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. The Government recognised that funding was necessary, and for the first time in the year commencing in April 1981 a specific allocation was made for hostel provisions within the Housing Corporation's programme. Within the national total of £12 million the corporation has devoted a substantial share—about one-third—to London. For the year commencing 1 April 1982 the total national provision will be £18 million, and London can expect to secure £6·5 million. This will provide more than 600 bedspaces.
The hon. Member mentioned resources for Westminster and for other London boroughs. The HIP allocation recognises the problems facing Westminster and other boroughs, and an element is added to that allocation to help them discharge their responsibilities. Many other hostel places in London have been approved under our initiative, and those were listed in the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on 20 November. The hon. Member mentioned the general needs index, and we are in correspondence with Councillor Simon Randall about this. We are quite happy to look at the weighting given to homelessness within the grant-related expenditure for housing to make sure we have the correct weighting.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are well aware of the extent of what is sometimes called the London hostel problem. Much of the present stock of accommodation is in hostels or lodging houses concentrated in inner London, which were built many years ago, and some of which now face closure. They are often bleak and unwelcoming and reflect past standards of amenity and past attitudes to single homeless people In the very worst cases they have lacked even basic standards of safety and cleanliness and have been inadequately staffed.
We believe that local authorities have a major part to play in dealing with hostel problems in their area. They have had a variety of powers for many years to enforce higher standards, where necessary, in the declining commercial sector; we have recently strengthened these powers through the Housing Act 1980.
Local authorities can also contribute substantially by investing in the refurbishment and renewal of hostels which they own themselves, and for which they have a direct responsibility. They also have an important contribution to make through enlightened planning policies which will permit the provision of new hostels by the voluntary sector. We are making resources available through our hostels initiative and seeing the first major expansion in hostels expenditure for a generation. London stands to gain a very substantial share of the benefits.
I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that the Government take the problem seriously, that we have identified the appropriate solutions and that we are moving towards them as fast as we reasonably can.

Question put and agreed to.

House accordingly adjourned at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.